Computer Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report€¦ · Annual Program Improvement Report...

Computer Engineering

Annual Program Improvement Report

2015-2016

Prepared by

Chuen H. Hsu

Chair and Program Improvement Coordinator

June 2016

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

California State University, Chico

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. ACTIONS TAKEN IN 2015-2016 TO IMPROVE THE PROGRAM

2.1 Areas recommended for Improvement in 2014-2015 Annual Report . . . . . . . . . . . .3

2.1.1 Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1.2 Program Outcome Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1.3 Program Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. ASSESSMENT DATA GATHERED IN 2010-2011

3.1 Embedded Assessment of Program Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.2 Graduating Senior Survey………… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2.1 Educational Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.2.2 Educational Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.3 Student Evaluation of Teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

4.1 Faculty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.2 Lab Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

APPENDICES

A. Statement of Mechatronic Engineering Program Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

B. Sample Program Outcome Assessment Record-Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

C. ECC Graduating Senior Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

D. MECA Supplemental Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

E. Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

F. Summary of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

1. INTRODUCTION

The Computer Engineering Program Improvement Process, edition 4 (June 2016)

documents the educational objectives, learning outcomes, and progress to make

improvements to the program.

This document, the Computer Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report,

provides a summary of findings and actions for the 2015-2016 academic year resulting

primarily from the implementations of the Computer Engineering Program

Improvement Process. This report is divided into three main sections: actions taken in

2015-2016 to improve the program, assessment results gathered in fall 2015 and spring

2016, and recommendations for improvements to the Program based on the assessment

results. While some detailed data are reported here, more complete data can be found in

the assessment files in the file cabinet located in the department office (OCNL 313) and

in EECE Department folder on the Chico State Bay server.

2. ACTIONS TAKEN IN 2015-2016 TO IMPROVE THE PROGRAM

2.1 Implementation of Changes Approved in 2014-2015

Areas considered include faculty instruction, curriculum and courses, program

outcome assessment, and degree progress report. Actions taken for program

improvement during 2015-2016 in the recommended areas are described in the

following.

2.1.1 Courses

Removal of CIVL 302 and CIVL 495 (6 units)

The removal of CIVL 302 (Engineering Risk and Economic Analysis) and

CIVL 495 (Professional Issues in Engineering) discussed and approved in

2014-2015 was implemented in the 2015-2016 university catalog and in the

CMPE curriculum. Program Outcomes originally assessed in CIVL 495 have

been assigned to other EECE courses. This resulted in six units available for

other curricular revisions.

Removal of EECE 482 (4 units)

The faculty approved the removal of EECE 482 (Control Systems Design)

from the CMPE degree plan in 2013-2014. The change has been implemented

in the 2015-2016 catalog and degree plan. This resulted in four units available

for other curricular revisions.

MATH 217 or CSCI 217 (3 units)

The requirement of MATH 217 (Discrete Math, 3 units) was modified to either

MATH 217 or CSCI 217 (Foundations of Computing, 3 units); either course

meets the degree requirement.

of 30

Addition of CSCI 311 (+4 units)

A four-unit course, CSCI 311 (Algorithms and Data Structures), was added to

the CMPE degree plan. The course has another required course, CSCI 211

(Programming and Algorithm II) as prerequisite.

Change EECE 490A/B units (from 5 units to 8 units, +3 units)

EECE 490A was changed from 3 units to 4 units and 490B from 2 units to 4

units for a total of 8 units for capstone design classes to cover material related

to the additional ABET Program Outcomes assigned.

Addition of a 3-unit restricted elective course (+3 units)

A second restricted elective course requirement is added to the CMPE degree

plan. The second elective course is 3-unit and can be selected from approved

upper-division engineering, science, and math courses not otherwise required

for graduation.

The BS in Computer Engineering degree remains at 126 units.

2.1.2 Program Outcome Assessment

Reassignment of Program Outcome assessments

Due to the removal of CIVL 495 from the CMPE degree plan, those program

outcomes measurements originally assigned to the course (Outcomes d, f, h, i,

and j) were re-assigned to other required EECE courses as shown in Table A.

The assessment schedule for all program outcome assessments through spring

2018 was revised as shown in Table A.

Table A – Schedule for CMPE Program Outcome assessments from 2015-2018.

Program

Outcome

Designated

Course

Fall

2015

Spring

2016

Fall

2016

Spring

2017

Fall

2017

Spring

2018

a EECE 311 X X X

b EECE 490A X X X

EECE 490B X X X

c EECE 490A X X X

d EECE 344 X X X

e EECE 343 X X X

f EECE 490B X X X

g EECE 490A X X X

h EECE 490A X X X

i EECE 437 X X X

j EECE 490B X X X

k EECE 365 X X X

of 30

The assessment schedule beyond spring 2018 will be determined after the

assessment results from fall 2015 through spring 2018 have been reviewed.

2.1.3 Program Educational Objectives

The program educational objectives were reviewed by faculty at the start of the

fall 2015 semester. No revisions were seen needed as there were no concerning

input or suggestions from program constituencies.

3. ASSESSMENT DATA GATHERED in 2015-2016

3.1 Embedded Assessment of Program Outcomes

Assessments embedded in courses and assessment results are summarized in Table B.

Note that (a) the assessment instruments and standard might have been slightly

modified by course instructors and (b) a grade of F was not automatically assigned

when the student fails to pass the outcome assessment. Table B is slightly incomplete

due to the lack of Outcome (i) assessment data from EECE 437 (Real-Time

Embedded Systems) taught in spring 2016.

Comments and suggestions from instructors of courses designated for outcome

assessment are summarized in Table C. A complete list of identified program

outcomes can be found in Appendix A and a sample program outcome assessment

data record sheet is in Appendix B. There are three main parts in the data record

sheet: assessment summary, rubric, and record of students enrolled in the course.

It should be noted that all students in the capstone design class EECE 490A met the

minimum competency of Program Outcome (b) in fall 2015, but 25% (2 out of 8) of

the same group of students did not meet the competency in the second part of the

capstone design class, EECE 490B, in spring 2016.

It appears in Table C that all instructors for the courses designated for program

outcome assessments seemed to be satisfied with the suitability of assessment in their

courses and had no suggestions for possible changes of the assigned outcome

assessments. Some instructors re-stated the pass rate of assessments without offering

practical comments. All assessment results and instructor input related to the outcome

assessments will be referenced by the course instructors in 2016-2017.

of 30

Table B: Embedded student learning outcome assessment instruments and results for fall

2015 and spring 2016.

Program

Outcome

Designed

Course Assessment Instrument

Minimum Score

/Assigned Total

Score for

Demonstrating

Basic Competency

Number of CMPE Majors

Failing to Demonstrate Basic

Competency / Number of

CMPE Majors Enrolled

Fall 2015 Spring 2016

a EECE 311

A minimum of six assignments or

exam problems are evaluated

throughout the semester 4/8 1/9 not assessed

b EECE 490A Documents produced in EECE

490A and 490BB which focus on a

capstone design project

8/14 0/8 not assessed

EECE 490B 10/14 not assessed 2/8

c EECE 490A Project documents produced for a

capstone design project 7/12 0/8 not assessed

d EECE 344

Observation of student

participation in group design

project over the entire semester

with multiple milestones


e EECE 343 Design projects over the entire

semester 7/10 not assessed 0/8

f EECE 490B

Writing assignments exploring

professional and ethical

responsibility within the

engineering profession

5/8 not assessed 0/8

g EECE 490A

Oral status report assignments and

written requirements and design

documents in EECE 490A 36/50 0/8 not assessed

h EECE 490A

Writing and oral response

assignments covering impact of

engineering solutions in various

context


i EECE 437

Four complementary assignments

of designated class assignments

that require investigation, learning

and reporting solution

approach/methods

6/8 not assessed not assessed

j EECE 490B

Writing assignments exploring

contemporary issues within the

engineering profession. 5/8 not assessed 0/8

k EECE 365

Class assignments that requires

demonstration of proficiency in

programming with MATLAB by

writing codes to plot signals,

evaluate convolution of signals

and plot it, evaluate spectrum of

signals and plot it, evaluate

transforms of signals, plot time

domain and frequency domain

response of system

8/12 not assessed 0/11

of 30

Table C: Evaluation of student achievement, suitability of assessment, and suggestions of

changes for the assessment by instructors of the designated courses for 2015-2016.

Program

Outcome

Designated

Course

Comments on Student

Achievement

Comments Related to

Suitability of Assessment

Suggestions for Possible

Changes to This Assessment

a EECE 311 None None None

b EECE 490A Stated the pass rate Suitable None

EECE 490B Stated the pass rate Suitable None

c EECE 490A None None None

d EECE 344 None None None

e EECE 343 Stated the pass rate None None

f EECE 490B None None None

g EECE 490A None None None

h EECE 490A None None None

i EECE 437 Not assessed Not assessed Not assessed

j EECE 490B None None None

k EECE 365 Stated the pass rate None None

3.2 Graduating Senior Survey

In fall 2015 and spring 2016 anonymous online surveys of Computer Engineering

graduating seniors was conducted. Common survey questions for all majors in the

College of ECC and those specifically for Computer Engineering majors are

reproduced in Appendices C and D, respectively. All responses from Computer

Engineering majors are integrated and documented in various parts of this report.

Survey questions in both parts of the annual survey can be grouped into those relating

to (1) demographics and post-graduate plans (which will not be discussed further in

this report), (2) educational satisfaction, and (3) learning outcomes.

3.2.1 Educational Satisfaction

Response, calculated as mean of all student ratings to a survey question, to

questions related to educational satisfaction in the common questionnaire for the

ECC Graduating Senior Survey are tabulated in Table D for 2012 through 2016.

Rating changes for the questions from 2015 to 2016 are summarized in Figure

1. These questions, number 15 to 30, provide measures of graduating seniors’

degree of satisfaction with faculty teaching, department facility, courses, and

advising. Question 44 is an indirect measure of their educational experience in

Chico State.

of 30

Table D: Response means to survey questions regarding educational satisfaction in the

Graduating Senior Survey from 2012 to 2016. (5 level Likert scale: 1 = very

dissatisfied and 5 = very satisfied; for question 44 only, 1 = strongly disagree and 5

= strongly agree.)

No. At Chico State, how satisfied were you with the . . . 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Q15 Quality of teaching by faculty in your department 3.63 3.18 3.00 4.11 4.00

Q16 Quality of teaching by other faculty 3.50 3.00 2.83 3.44 4.00

Q17 Access to faculty in your department 4.29 3.00 4.33 4.22 4.33

Q18 Availability of courses in your department 2.88 3.00 3.60 2.89 3.44

Q19 Quality of courses in your department 3.25 3.18 3.00 3.89 4.00

Q20 Access to lab facilities and equipment 4.00 3.55 4.17 4.00 4.22

Q21 Quality of laboratories and equipment 3.63 2.73 3.00 3.00 3.22

Q22 Access to computer facilities 4.13 2.91 4.00 3.78 4.44

Q23 Quality of computer facilities 3.00 2.64 1.67 2.67 3.67

Q24 Academic advising from your major advisor 4.00 3.36 4.83 4.11 4.11

Q25 Academic advising from the Advising Office 3.13 2.91 3.67 3.33 3.22

Q26 Career information from your department 3.00 3.27 4.17 3.44 3.56

Q27 Availability of GE courses 3.88 3.36 3.67 3.56 3.89

Q28 Quality of GE courses 3.86 3.27 2.83 3.22 3.56

Q29 Overall quality of your education 3.86 3.18 3.50 4.00 4.33

Q30 Your overall experience at Chico State 4.29 3.27 3.50 4.00 4.33

Q44 I would recommend my major at CSU, Chico to others 3.25 3.88 3.09 4.22 4.25

Figure 1: Change of ratings to survey questions regarding educational satisfaction

from 2015 to 2016.

As summarized in Table D and Figure 1, questions related to educational

satisfaction in the 2015-2016 survey have mixed results comparing with those

from a year ago, generally there are more improvements than declines.

The three most significant improvements in satisfaction are observed in:

of 30

“Quality of computer facilities” (Q23, +1.00),

“Access to computer facilities” (Q22, +0.66), and

“Quality of teaching by other faculty” (Q16, +0.56).

At the same time, declines are seen in:

“Quality of teaching by faculty in your department” (Q15, 0.11),

“Career information from our department” (Q25, 0.11),

It is noticeable in rating changes between the teaching of department faculty

(Q15, 0.11) and that of other faculty (Q16, +0.56 in rating) while both received

equal degree of satisfaction at the same rating of 4.00.

3.2.2 Educational Outcomes

Responses to survey questions related to educational outcomes from the 2012 to

2016 surveys are tabulated in Table E, and rating changes from 2015 to 2016 for

the same questions are summarized in Figure 2. Many of the educational

outcomes surveyed in the Graduating Senior Survey are either very close or

identical to most of the defined program outcome statements. The survey results

provide insight into the perceived learning by students.

Table E: Response means to survey questions regarding learning outcomes in

2012 through spring 2016 graduating senior surveys. (5 level Likert

scale: 1 = very unprepared and 5 = very well prepared)

No. Based on your educational experience here at

Chico State, how well prepared are you to … 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Q31 Apply knowledge of math, science, engineering, or

technology to solve problems 4.00 3.82 4.17 4.11 4.00

Q32 Design and conduct experiments 3.75 3.36 4.00 4.11 3.78

Q33 Analyze and interpret data 3.75 3.36 4.40 4.11 4.11

Q34 Design a component or system to meet desired needs 4.13 3.55 4.00 3.56 4.00

Q35 Function on a multidisciplinary team 3.63 3.64 3.67 4.00 4.00

Q36 Identify, formulate, and solve technical problems 4.13 3.55 4.00 4.11 4.11

Q37 Communicate technical matters in writing 4.13 3.73 3.17 3.56 4.11

Q38 Communicate technical matters orally 4.00 3.73 3.83 3.78 4.22

Q39 Understand & apply professional & ethical principles 3.88 3.82 3.67 4.11 4.33

Q40 Understand contemporary issues facing society 3.43 3.45 3.00 3.78 4.11

Q41 Use modern tools and technology 3.88 3.45 3.50 4.11 4.00

Q42 Enter the workplace* 3.63 3.27 3.67 4.00 4.22

Q43 Continue learning 4.50 4.00 4.33 4.11 4.33

*Question number 42 is not a defined Program Outcome

of 30

0.6 -

0.5 - -

0.4 -

-Q)

0.3 OJ)

-

C: 0.2 ro - - - - - I-- -.c: u OJ)

0.1 - - - - -C: - 0 ro

0:: -0.1 tl3i :).3 Q33 Q34 Q35 Q36 Q37 Q38 Q39 Q40 tl4i Q42 Q43

-0.2

-0.3 --0.4

Figure 2: Change of ratings to survey questions regarding learning outcomes

from 2015 to 2016.

It is encouraging that rating improvement is observed in most survey areas

when comparisons are made between 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 as shown in

Figure 2. The three most significant improvements are in:

“Communicate technical matters in writing” (Q37, +0.55),

“Communicate technical matters orally” (Q38, +0.44), and

“Design a component or system to meet desired needs” (S34, +0.44).

Also indicated in Figure 2, the noticeable declines are in:

“Design and conduct experiment” (Q32, 0.33),

“Use modern tools and technology”, (Q41, 0.11), and

“Apply knowledge of math, science, engineering, or technology to solve

problems” (Q31, 0.11)

3.2.3 Open-ended Written Comments

Some of the written responses to the open-ended question “please provide

additional comments regarding what you LIKED most about the program and

what can be done to enhance it” in the CMPE-specific part of the 2015-2016

graduating senior survey are categorized and summarized in the following. The

comments presented here are direct duplicates; no corrections of spelling and

grammatical errors were attempted.

Faculty

• What I liked about the EECE department is how much effort the teacher

put into teaching. I did not like the fact that we had a lot of new teachers

with no experience that did not know how to teach but will grade hard.

of 30

Equipment

• I would like for the equipment to be of higher quality, most of the current

equipment now is becoming faulty and is skewing the inputs and outputs

of the systems.

3.3 Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET)

Computer Engineering students take courses taught by the EECE department as

well as those by other academic departments. The mandatory SET is conducted in

fall and spring semester classes with enrollment of 6 or more. In both semesters the

evaluation instrument, SIR II, was adopted which is rather comprehensive

comparing with some of those used in the past. The SIR II questionnaire contains

ten categories that each comes with a set of related questions. The ten sets of

questions can be found in Appendix E.

Here the rating means for eight of the ten evaluation categories for EECE courses for

fall 2015 and spring 2016 are summarized in Figures 3. For both semesters, no

quantifiable data for categories D and H was reported. Rating distributions for each

of the eight reported categories for both semesters are summarized in Appendix F.

Figure 3 – SET rating averages for eight surveyed categories for fall2015 and spring

2016. The rating on a scale is 1 to 5 with 5 being the “most effective”.

of 30

As can be seen in Figure 3, nearly all evaluated categories received higher ratings in

spring 2016 than those reported for fall 2015. The biggest improvement is in

“Faculty and Student Interaction”. The only decline is seen in “Student Effort and

Involvement” from 4.02 to 3.97 in rating.

Of the eight reported evaluation categories for spring 2016, the ratings for Student

Effort and Involvement has the smallest range of rating distribution, 3.0 to 4.8 as

shown in Figure 4(a) while the course Overall Evaluation has the largest range of

rating distribution from <2.5 to 5.0 in Figure 4(b). The same two categories (G and

I) showing the same rating distributions can also be observed in fall 2015 SET

results as can be seen in Appendix F.

(a)

(b)

Figure 4 – The smallest (a) and the largest (b) range of rating distributions in the

evaluation categories of the spring 2016 SET.

of 30

4. Recommendations for Program Improvement

4.1 Faculty

Students apparently have opinions on new faculty members’ teaching in written

comments. As the EECE Department has started to add junior faculty members, they

need to be constantly reminded about the effect of their teaching on student learning.

There are a few ways to help junior faculty improve their teaching such as mentoring

by experienced faculty, attending workshops on teaching and learning provided by

CELT (Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching), and experienced faculty

sharing their course syllabi and lecture material. The Department Personnel Committee

may also provide helpful input in the annual RTP report on teaching effectiveness

based on direct observation of junior faculty’s classroom performance.

4.2 Lab Condition

The condition of equipment in EECE labs has been deteriorating as students pointed out

in senior exit survey written comments. This is not a new concern. Besides depending

on special allocation from the university and college, faculty can help with research

grants earmarked for equipment if possible. The department and faculty may also seek

equipment donations from industries.

of 30

Appendix A

Computer Engineering Program Outcomes

All Computer Engineering graduates shall demonstrate:

a) an ability to apply knowledge of math, science and engineering,

b) an ability to design and conduct experiments as well as to analyze and interpret data,

c) 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,

d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams,

e) an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems,

f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities,

g) an ability to communicate effectively in both oral and written forms,

h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a

global, economic, environmental, and societal context

i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning

j) a knowledge of contemporary issues, and

k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice

of 30

Appendix B

Sample Program Outcome Assessment Data Record Sheet

Program Instructor:

Outcome:

Course: Semester:

a: An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics,

science, and engineering

EECE 311 Linear Circuits II

Description:

Metric:

Rubric:

Circuit analysis techniques for networks with both independent and

dependent sources. Network topology. Natural and forced response for RLC

circuits. Complex frequency, poles and zeros. Magnetically coupled circuits

and two-port networks.

Assessment will be based on an evaluation of selected assignments for each

student in EECE 311. A minimum of six assignments or exam problems

will be evaluated throughout the semester.

A student will demonstrate successful completion of this outcome by

achieving a score of 4 of 8 (based on the assessment rubric shown in the

attached table) on three class assignments and one examination problem.

Standard: 4

Students must meet the standard on at least two of the four assignments

evaluated throughout the semester.

Instructor Evaluation Summary

Number of students achieving standard:

Number of students failing standard:

0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0!

Comments related to student achievement of this outcome measurement.

Comments related to the suitability of this outcome measurement.

Suggestions for possible changes to this outcome measurement.

Instructions: Enter information in blue fields. Yellow fields will be updated automatically.

of 30

Rubric for Program Outcome a: An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

Assessment will be based on an evaluation of selected assignments for each student in EECE 311 . A student will demonstrate successful completion of this outcome by achieving a score of 4 of 8 (based on the assessment rnbric shown in the following table) on at least three class assignments or examination problems. A minimum of four assignments or exam problems will be evaluated throughout the semester.

Student:

Evaluation Inadequate Marginal Adequate Measures Scale 0 1 2 Score Problem Solution- Results poorly presented; hard Correct solution given but Problem solution steps in logical order 2 style to follow reasoning; final difficult to follow; missing and neatly written; final answers

answer not clearly indicated; steps in solution, or results clearly marked with appropriate units missing units. not in logical order. and labels.

Knowledge of Relationships between Relations between currents Equations relating current and voltage 2 Circuit Analvsis - currents and voltage for and voltages correct, but for R,L,C clear with correct directions fundamental R,L,C, or transformer there are sign errors or and polarities; relationships involving relationships and incorrect; energy or power they are used incorrectly. energy and power state correctly. laws of physics. calculations incorrect.

Knowledge of KVL or KCL circuit ,equations KVL or KCL set up, but Circuit variables such as currents and 2 Circuit Analvsis - incorrect; energy or power with sign errors or missing voltages identified with their

starting the relationships needed to solve terms. directions or polarities on a circuit solution. problem set up incorrectly. diagram; KCL, KVL, or energy

equations applied correctly.

Knowledge of Incorrect solution for current, Most variables, such as All desired variables such as currents, 2 Circuit Analvsis - voltage or power variables; currents, voltages or voltages or power, found by applying solving the incorrect application of power, found by applying appropriate mathematical methods problem. appropriate mathematics, such appropriate mathematical correctly; problem solution checked

as, linear algebra, calculus, methods but several errors using PSpice if appropriate. complex variables, or in the details. differential equations

Total 8

of 30

a: An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering 0

Number of students

achieving standard:

Number of students

failing Standard:

0 ######

0 ######

CPME Majors

Student Name Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 Score 4

Standard

Met

of 30

Appendix C

ECC Graduating Senior Survey Instrument

of 30

Prugrnm O utcomes Questions

Hased on your educational experience here at Chico State, how wdl prepared arc you to ...

:Q~~

9-J~ :Q~~ :Q~~ :Q~71 ;QJ~ :Q~2:

:Q1!~

\Q~~ :Q1~

17. Apply knowledge of math, sci~1ce, engineering, or technology to solve problems

18. Design and execute test procedures (for equipment/hard wan:: componc::nts or so1lware)

19. Analy Le, assess, and interpret data/results from test procedures

20. Design a component or system to meet desired needs

2 1. F uncLion in a multidisciplinary team

22 . ldentit\7, formulate and solve technical problems

23 . Communicate technical matters in writing

24. Communicate technical matters orally

25 . Understand and apply professional and ethical principles

26. Understa nd contemporary issues fac ing society

2 7. lJ sc modern tools and technology

28 . Apprec iate impact of your solutions 0 11 society and environment

29. Continue learning

30. I would recommend my major program at CSU, Chico to others.

Please Select One .. . .... GAGO (GAGO) CINS (CINSJ CIMT (CIMT) CIVL (CIVL) CMGT [CMGT] GMPE (GMPEJ GSGI (CSCIJ EENG [EENGJ M ENG (MENG] M EGA (M EGA) SMFG (SMFGJ

Page Ilreak

31. Major: ~1] Other [Other] .~2. Graduation Date Semester :9-.2 1: ,.., ... ---•,.., ,..,

L2J O Spri11g ~' ] 0 Summer :4: 0 Fall

a: :71 Very Unprepared

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 :i: ~

Strongly D isagree

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

~

0 0

r,

=I:

Very Prepared

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

0

0 0

0

0

LS.:

Strongly Agree

0

of 30

Year lQ_l_~J [2:~1~] 0 2015 :2oia 0 201 c) 2·oi1: 0 20 11 :iois: 0 2018 .. .. .. .. .. . "' ........ ...,. __ ..

33. Did you come to Chico State a'> a .. . ;Q}J [1] 0 First-time fresl, man [2] 0 T ransfer

:!4 . How many semesters did you attend ( :hico State? lQ:1: :1: 0 1-3 :-2: 0 4-6 [1: 0 7-9 ~ 0 10-12 :5: 0 13+ ... .. ....... ....... .,. __ .. ......

:!5 . What is your Overall <i.PA? :9.?J :I: 0 He low 2 .25

:2: 0 2.25-2.49

:31 0 2 .50-2.74 ,.,

0 2 .75-2.99 :4: ,.,

0 3.00-3.24 :5: .. , :6: 0 3.25-3.49 ,., :7: 0 ., .50-3.74

~~: 0 3.75-4.00 36. If you had an intemship, co-op, or j ob related lo your major while in school, how valuahlc was the experience? :Q.01

,., :I: 0 Did not have internsh ip , co-op, or joh

:2: 0 Very Valuable

:3: 0 \ lalu.able!

:41 0 Son1c,vhat \ /aluahlc ,., :5: O Not Valuable

37. If you were involved in any sludent!pro1essional so~i~]y , activities, or clubs, how valuable was the experience? LQ]J

:r: 0 \Vas not involved in societies, activities, or clubs

:2: 0 Very Valuable

r.11 0 V1aluablC!

:41 0 Somc:,vhal \ ta}uable

:5: 0 Not Valuahk

3 8. Imme<lialely after gn~t!l;!~l!!I}g are you planning lo .. . Attend graduate School RLll [1] 0 Yes [2] 0 No

He2in Working :Q8 2: ,.,-, ,., .. ---· ~1! 0 Yes t2J O No

If you are NOT planning to work full -time, or if you have not begun looking for a joh, plea'>t'. skip to Qut'.slion 43. ·--· :! 1) . How many job offers have you received? :99: ,., ,., ,., ,., .. _ .. ,., ~ 0 None LlJ O One t2J O T wo ~! 0 Thrt'.e ::lJ O four I,-··-·

40. Do you currently have a job offer that you are likely to accept? Q l~ [1] 0 Yes .. , L2J O No

:Nested Question Group for Response r1 l of question rQIOl : :If 'Ycs,' Pkasc provide: : jcompany Name: RI{ )] : :Yon Tla.v<:l 50 Cl1mm;le1;; Re111a i11 ing . . .

of 30

!Your Job T it.le: R>IQ:JJ :You Have 50 C'harnctcrs Remaining.

:Starling mmual Salary ~_l_Q_;3] :1: 0 Les;; then $30k r,

0 $30k-$40k :2: r, ..... •-="• 0 $41k-$50k

:4: 0 $5 l k-$60k r, :s: 0 $6 l k-$70k

fr~ 0 $71 k or more

4 1. Tfyou interviewe~_t!~t~lJUgh the campus Career P lanning & Placement Otliee, how hdpful was it? QU:

:I: 0 Di<l nol interview through campus office r, :2: 0 V cry Helpful

f:~: 0 Helpfu l

:4: 0 Somewhat Ildpfu.l

:5: 0 Not Helpful

42. Ifyou found a job that you are likely to accept, how did you find it? Qt?: :I: 0 Campus Career Planning & Placement Office r, :2: 0 faculty/department refem11

:3: 0 Online Posting

:4: 0 Mailed resume

fs1 0 Ptrson,11 c·o1mtclions

:6: 0 Other

:Nes ted Qu<:'.slion Group for Rc::sponsc:: [6] of quest.ion [Q l 2]

!P!':~~~-~recif'y: : :<;,>_12 1: :Y~n H.;~,~· 3500 Charnctc1s Rcmauuug.

l-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,-----------------43 . Did you Lake a comprehc::nsive exam (FE, CMdgT, MIT or other) for your discipline? QtJ: r, :1: 0 No, <lid not Lttke

:2: 0 Y cs, and passed

:3: 0 Yes and did not pass r, :4: 0 Y c::s and wailing for r<:'.sull.s

44 . If you took a eomprchem,ivc exam, did you also attend a review course to prepare you for the exam? Rl:ll [1] 0 Yes

[2] ONo 1-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------:Nested Question <:rroup for Response I lJ_ !:'Lg_1.1:_estion IQ 141 •If 'Y <:'.s ,' how valuable was the 1:our~e? ~)_'4_JJ

[1] 0 Very Valuable

:2: 0 Valuable

:;): 0 Somevvhal Valuable

f4: 0 Not. \7alu.able

of 30

45. Ilow satisfied are you with th,<:.~!~pm1ment s uppmt you received while enrolled at Chico State? :Q.4?:

fa] 0 Very dissatisfied

:2: 0 Somewhat dissatisfied

f31 0 Neutral

:4i O Somewhat satisfied

:5] 0 Very satisfied

46. How oft.en did you meet with someone in the Univcn,ity Advising Office? \Q4~~ :11 0 tv1ore than once a sen,ester

:2: 0 Once a sernester .. :3: 0 Once a year

:4l O 1-ess than once a year

rs: 0 Nevc:r

47. How often did you meet with your m~jor ( departmental) advisor? :Q4?J :11 0 1v1ore than once a s~ c:st.e:r

:2: 0 Once a semester r, :3: 0 Once a year

:4i O Less than once a year

fs1 0 Never

48. How has the quality of your educational exp9J~]}CC varied over the time period you were enrolled at Chico State? :Q.4?:

fa] 0 Quality improved significamly

:2: 0 Quality improved somewhat r, :3: 0 Quality stayed fai rly consistent r, :4: 0 Quality declined ;;omewhat

:5: 0 Quality dcclincc considerably

49. Permanent e-mail Address ( so we can keep in touch ) :050: . .:-,;. __ . Yon Have 3500 Chamcrer, Remaining .

of 30

Appendix D

of 30

Appendix E

Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Questionnaire

Spring 2016

of 30

STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL REPORT

@ SIR/I™ Assessing Courses and Instruction

5

A. Course Organization and Planning Not Ve,y Omit Applicable Effective

1. The instructor's explanation of the course requirements

2. The instructor 's preparation for each class period

3. The instructor's command of the subject matter

4. The instructor's use of class time

5. The instructor's way of summarizing or emphasizing important points in class

Overall Mean

5

B. Communication Not Ve,y Omit Applicable Effective

6. The instructor's ability to make clear and understandable presentations

7. The instmctor's command of spoken English (or the language used in the course)

8 . The instructor's use of examples or illustrations to clarify course material

9. The instructor's use of challenging questions or problems

10. 111e instructor's enthusiasm for the course material

Overall Mean

Class Report

Subunit: ECC - Mech Engr,

Mechatronic Engr, Manufact Tech

Course: Measurements and

Instrumentation

Instructor: Enrollment:

Survey Period: Spring 2012

PERCENTAGES repo1ted below are based on the total number responding, which is: 7*

4 3 2 1

Moderatly Somewhat Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective

4 3 2 1

Moderatly Somewhat Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective

Mean

Mean

of 30

5 4 3 2 1

C. Faculty /Student Interaction Not Very Moderatly Somewhat Omit Applicable Effective Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective Mean

11. The instructor's helpfulness and responsiveness to students

12. The instructor's respect for students

13. The instructor's concern for student progress

14. The availability of e.xtra help for this class (taking into account the size of the class)

15. The ins tructor's willingness to listen to student questions and opinions

Overall Mean

5 4 3 2 1

D. Assignments, Exams, and Grading Not Very Moderatly Somewhat Omit Applicable Effective Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective Mean

16. The information given to students about how they would be graded

17. The clarity of exam questions

18. The exams' coverage of important aspects of the course

19. The instructor's comme nts on assignments and exams

20. The overall quality of the textbook(s)

21. The helpfulness of assignments in understanding course material

Overall Mean

5 4 3 2 l

E. Instructional Methods and Materials Not Very Moderatly Somewhat Omit Applicable Effective Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective Mean

22. Problems or questions presented by the instructor for small group discussions

23. Term paper(s) or project(s)

24. Laboratory exercises for understanding important course concepts

25. Assigned projects in which students worked together

26. Case studies, s imulations, or role playing

27. Course journals or logs required of students

28. Instmctor's use of computers as aids in instruction

Means are not reported (***) for Instructional Methods

5 4 3 2 1

F. Course Outcomes Not Very Moderatly Somewhat Omit Applicable Effective Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffecth·e Mean

29. My learning increased in this course?

30. I made progress toward achieving course objectives?

31. My interest in the subject area has increased ?

32. This course helped me to think independently about the subject matter ...

33. This course actively involved me in what I was learning?

Overall Mean

of 30

5 4 3 2 1

G. Student Effort and Involvement Not Vety Moderatly Somewhat Omit Applicable Effective Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective Mean

34. I studied and put effort into the course?

35. I was prepared for each class [ writing and reading assignments]?

36. I was challenged by this course?

Overall Mean

H. Course Difficulty, Work Load, and Pace Somewhat di- Somewhat el-Omit Veiydifficult fficult About right ementary Very elementary

37. For my preparation and ability, the level of d ifficulty of this course was?

About the Omit Much heavier Heavier same Lighter Much lighter

38. The workload for this course in relation to other courses of equal credit was?

Just about Omit Vety fast Somewhat fast right Somewhat slow Very slow

39 . For me, the pace at which the instructor covered the material during the te rm was?

5 4 3 2 1

I. Overall Evaluation Vety Moderatly Somewhat Omit Effective Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective Mean

40. Rate the quality of instruction in th is course as it con tributed to your learning (try to set aside your feelings about the course content):

Overall Mean

J. Student Information A major/

minorreq- A college Omit uirement requirement An elective Other

41. Which o ne of the following best describes this course for you?

Freshman- Sophomor- Junior/3rd Senior/4th Omit / 1st year e/2ndyear year year Graduate Other

42. What is your class level?

Better in another Equally well in English Omit Better in English language and another language

43. Do you communicate better in English or another language?

Omit Female Male

44.Sex

Omit A A- B+ B B- C+ BelowC

45. What grade do you expect to receive in this comse?

of 30

Appendix F

Summary of Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Ratings

of 30

Fall 2015

of 30

Spring 2016

of 30

Computer Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report€¦ · Annual Program Improvement Report...

Documents

Transcript of Computer Engineering Annual Program Improvement Report€¦ · Annual Program Improvement Report...