Minutes ECE Faculty Meeting October 3, 2017 12:40 Present: Drs. Carter, Chamberlin, Kirsch, Kayaalp, Kun, LaCourse, Messner, Miller, Rudolph, Smith, Song, Yoon 1. Approve minutes of September 19, 2017 faculty meeting The minutes were approved 2. ABET ( Draft Visitor reports for Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering) a. No deficiencies were identified (i.e., nothing blocking our path to accreditation) b. Weaknesses identified: i. Criterion 2: the process of review for our Program Educational Objec- tives (PEO’s) is not adequately documented 1. We should document every time we discuss PEO’s in faculty meetings, Student Advisory Board Meetings and IAB meetings 2. Motion to endorse our PEO’s: Depth: To be effective in applying electrical engineering principles in engineering practice or for advanced study in electrical engineering. Breadth: To have a productive career in the many diverse fields of electrical engineering such as analog engineering, bioengineering, communications, and electromagnetics and waves, or in the pursuit of graduate education in disciplines such as electrical engineering, medi- cine, law or business. Professionalism: To function effectively in the complex modern work environment with the ability to assume professional leadership roles. The motion to reaffirm the PEO’s above was discussed and voted upon by the ECE faculty, and the motion passed. ii. Criterion 4: we need to implement a systematic evaluation of Perfor- mance Indicators (grades are not sufficient). We may want to add these indicators to our syllabi (e.g., complex numbers, loop equations, Fourier Transforms, etc.) and use specific test question results as measures of success 1. We are commingling our survey results: they should be sepa- rate for CE and EE
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
1. Approve minutes of September 19, 2017 faculty meeting
The minutes were approved
2. ABET ( Draft Visitor reports for Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering)
a. No deficiencies were identified (i.e., nothing blocking our path to accreditation)
b. Weaknesses identified:
i. Criterion 2: the process of review for our Program Educational Objec-tives (PEO’s) is not adequately documented
1. We should document every time we discuss PEO’s in faculty meetings, Student Advisory Board Meetings and IAB meetings
2. Motion to endorse our PEO’s:
Depth: To be effective in applying electrical engineering principles in
engineering practice or for advanced study in electrical engineering.
Breadth: To have a productive career in the many diverse fields of
electrical engineering such as analog engineering, bioengineering,
communications, and electromagnetics and waves, or in the pursuit of
graduate education in disciplines such as electrical engineering, medi-
cine, law or business.
Professionalism: To function effectively in the complex modern work
environment with the ability to assume professional leadership roles.
The motion to reaffirm the PEO’s above was discussed and voted upon by the ECE faculty, and
the motion passed.
ii. Criterion 4: we need to implement a systematic evaluation of Perfor-mance Indicators (grades are not sufficient). We may want to add these indicators to our syllabi (e.g., complex numbers, loop equations, Fourier Transforms, etc.) and use specific test question results as measures of success
1. We are commingling our survey results: they should be sepa-rate for CE and EE
2. Outcome h) is not assessed. That outcome is: The broad educa-
tion necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal context:
a. We can require students to address “impact” in their capstone final report to satisfy this issue
b. We can require the same to address ethics
c. Concerns identified
i. We need to show explicitly how we make team experiences available to stu-dents
ii. We need to show explicitly how students are aware of constraints and stand-ards (we can satisfy this by requiring students to address this in their cap-stone report)
iii. For CE program: replacing Prof. Miller is a concern
d. Student feedback given to Visitors
i. CE’s and EE’s have different backgrounds when entering ECE602, which disadvantages CE’s
Prof. Miller noted that in his analysis of student performance in ECE602, the CE’s outperformed
the EE.
ii. High number of Gen Ed requirements poses difficulty
iii. Moving ECE694 created problems for some students as it prevented them from working on their projects over the summer
iv. EE students were less prepared when entering ECE562 because they had one fewer programming course
v. ECE647 is too abstract and could benefit from practical examples
vi. Parking continues to be a problem for commuters
3. Announcements
a. Interaction with Dean relating to new hire(s) (see attached)
The department’s response to the Dean’s request for information was discussed, and it was de-
cided that a timeline be included in the response to show that our need for new faculty extends
back over many years. The Chair will draft the response and then circulate it to faculty so that
they can include information about how their research would benefit from new and targeted fac-
ulty slots. The target area will be Embedded Computing with a focus on Biomedical Engineer-
ing.
b. ECE Milling Machine
i. It works, but perhaps Jim Abare should be the sole operator
It was agreed that Mr. Abare should be the sole operator of the milling machine
ii. Should we encourage students to send their boards outside for fabrica-tion?
c. Advising
i. Eligibility for Senior Projects (Messner: see attached)
1. Ensuring prerequisites have been met
2. Senior Projects and independent studies
Prof. Messner presented the two motions stated in the attachment, and these motions were dis-
cussed and voted upon by the ECE faculty. The result is that both motions passed, and they have
been archived on the department’s website under Policies/Student Related.
ii. Should we advocate for more centralized advising?
The faculty meeting was adjourned at this point in the agenda as it was past 2:00pm.