-
Program Self-Study Reportfor
Bachelor of Science in Computer EngineeringTechnology
Submitted byDepartment of Electronics and Computer Engineering
Technology
College of TechnologyIndiana State University
to the
Technology Accreditation CommissionAccreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology, Inc.
111 Market Place, Suite 1050Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4012
August 30, 2012
-
Contents
Contents i
Preface 1
1 Background and Overview 2
1.1 Degree Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Program Mode and Curriculum Overview . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 2
1.3 Department Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Department Constituents and Feedback Loops . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.6 Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Students 6
2.1 Undergraduate Student Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Student Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Transfer Student Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5 Advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5.1 Adviser and Student Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 9
2.5.2 Advising Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 9
2.5.3 General Advising Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 10
2.5.4 New Students Orientation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 10
2.5.5 Advising Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.6 Adviser Personal Identification Number (PIN) . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 11
2.5.7 Student Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 11
i
-
2.6 Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.7 On-line Undergraduate Academic Information . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 12
2.8 Student Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.9 Tutoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.10 Career Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Educational Objectives 14
3.1 Institutional, College and Departmental Missions . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.1 Institutional mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.2 College mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Constituencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3 Program Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Consistency with Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.5 Consistency with ABET Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6 Developing Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.6.1 Process to Determine Educational Objectives . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 17
3.7 Assessing Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.7.1 Advisory board survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 22
3.7.2 Alumni survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 22
3.7.3 Employers survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 24
3.8 Evaluating Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.9 Educational Objectives Evaluation Flowchart . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 25
4 Student Outcomes 27
4.1 Student Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2 Relationship of Student Outcomes to Educational Objectives
and ABET Cri-teria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.3 Student Outcomes and Course Learning Objectives . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 28
4.4 Developing Student Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 31
4.5 Assessment Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.5.1 Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 31
4.5.2 Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 33
4.6 Assessment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 33
ii
-
5 Continuous Improvement and Assessment 45
5.1 Educational Objectives Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.1.1 Data Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 45
5.1.2 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 46
5.1.3 Data Dissemination and Program Actions . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 50
5.2 Student Outcomes Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 51
5.2.1 Evidence Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 51
5.2.2 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 52
5.2.3 Data Dissemination and Program Actions . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 56
6 Curriculum 57
6.1 Foundational Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.1.1 Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 57
6.1.2 Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 58
6.1.3 Physical and Natural Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 58
6.2 Technical Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.2.1 Technical core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 58
6.2.2 Use of appropriate tools and computer support . . . . . .
. . . . . . 60
6.2.3 The Integration of Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 60
6.2.4 Co-operative education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 60
6.2.5 Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 60
7 Facilities 61
7.1 Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
7.1.1 CET Office Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 61
7.1.2 Auditorium and Meeting Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 61
7.2 Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
7.3 Laboratories, Equipments and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 62
7.4 Computing and Information Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 63
7.5 Library Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
7.6 Adequacy of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 64
8 Faculty 65
iii
-
8.1 Adequacy of Faculty Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 65
8.2 Faculty Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.3 Student-Faculty Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 68
8.4 University Services and Professional Development . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 68
8.5 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 69
9 Institutional Support 70
9.1 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
9.2 Program Budget and Financial Support . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 70
9.3 Faculty Hiring and Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.4 Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.5 Support for Faculty Professional Development . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 72
10 Program Criteria 73
A Industrial Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 76
B ECET (ECMET) Department Meeting Minutes 84
C Computer Engineering Technology Faculty Meeting Minutes 89
D Industrial Advisory Board Survey 96
D.1 Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 96
D.2 2012 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
D.3 2009 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
D.4 Sample Survey Returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 114
E Computer Engineering Technology Alumni Survey 119
E.1 Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 119
E.2 2012 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
E.3 2009 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
F Employer Survey 157
F.1 Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 157
F.2 2010 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
iv
-
G Senior Exit Survey 167
H Faculty Resume 180
I Curriculum 187
J Institutional Support 191
K Facilities 203
L Articulation Agreements 206
M Computer Engineering Program Brochure 211
N Syllabi 214
O Institutional Summary 273
v
-
List of Tables
1.1 Contact Information: Chairperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Contact Information: Program Coordinator . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 CET Program Enrollment and Degree Data . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Relationship between Educational Objectives and ABET Program
Criteria . 18
3.2 Educational Objectives Performance Rubric . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Educational Objectives Assessment Benchmarks,
Interpretations, and Pro-gram Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1 Correspondence between Educational Objectives, Student
Outcomes, andABET a-k Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2 Correspondence between CET curriculum and Student Outcomes .
. . . . . 30
4.3 Performance Criteria for Outcome 1: Problem Solving Skills .
. . . . . . . . 34
4.4 Performance Criteria for Outcome 2: Design Skills . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 35
4.5 Performance Criteria for Outcome 3: Lab Skills . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 36
4.6 Performance Criteria for Outcome 4: Managerial Skills . . .
. . . . . . . . . 37
4.7 Performance Criteria for Outcome 5: Ethics Awareness . . . .
. . . . . . . . 38
4.8 Performance Criteria for Outcome 6: Life-Long Learning . . .
. . . . . . . . 39
4.9 Performance Criteria for Outcome 7: Teamwork Skills . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 40
4.10 Performance Criteria for Outcome 8: Communication Skills .
. . . . . . . . 41
4.11 Assessment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.1 Survey Summary on the Degree of Importance of Educational
Objectives . . 46
5.2 Survey Summary on the Degree of Readiness of Educational
Objectives . . 46
6.1 Course and Section Size Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 59
vi
-
7.1 ECET Department Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 62
8.1 Faculty Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.2 Faculty Workload Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 67
8.3 Faculty Workload Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 68
10.1 Correlation between Program Criteria and Curriculum . . . .
. . . . . . . . 75
J.1 Programs Offered by the Educational Unit . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 197
J.2 Support Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 198
J.3 Faculty Salary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
J.4 Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
vii
-
List of Figures
3.1 Program Evaluation Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 26
A.1 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting April 25 2005 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 77
A.2 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting April 6 2006 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 78
A.3 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting April 13 2007 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 79
A.4 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting April 11 2008 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 80
A.5 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting November 24 2009 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 81
A.6 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting April 15 2011 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 82
A.7 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting April 20 2012 . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 83
B.1 Proposed Discussion Items on CET Program for IAB Meeting . .
. . . . . . 85
B.2 Proposed Changes to Address ABET Capstone Requirement . . .
. . . . . . 86
B.3 Minutes of ECMET Faculty Discussions on CET Capstone Nov. 11
2009 . . . 87
B.4 Minutes of ECMET Faculty Discussions on CET Capstone Nov. 13
2009 . . . 88
C.1 CET Faculty Meeting Minutes October 6 2009 . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 90
C.2 CET Faculty Meeting Minutes February 8 2010 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 91
C.3 CET Faculty Meeting Minutes October 10 2010 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 92
C.4 CET Faculty Meeting Minutes November 2 2011 . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 93
C.5 F-1 Form for CET Capstone Course Change . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 94
C.6 Proposed CET Capstone Syllabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 95
D.1 2012 IAB Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
D.2 2012 Industrial Advisory Board Survey Results on CET Program
Educa-tional Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
D.3 2009 Industrial Advisory Board Survey Results on CET Program
Educa-tional Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
viii
-
D.4 Survey Return Sample: IAB Approval of Educational Objectives
. . . . . . . 115
D.5 Survey Return Sample: IAB Approval of Educational Objectives
. . . . . . . 116
D.6 Survey Return Sample: IAB Approval of Educational Objectives
. . . . . . . 117
D.7 Survey Return Sample: IAB Approval of Educational Objectives
. . . . . . . 118
E.1 2012 Alumni Survey on Program Educational Objectives . . . .
. . . . . . . 120
E.2 2012 Alumni Survey Results on CET Program Educational
Objectives . . . . 122
E.3 2009 Alumni Survey Results on CET Program Educational
Objectives . . . . 143
F.1 2012 Employer Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 158
F.2 Employer Survey Results Spring 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 160
G.1 Spring 2012 Senior Exit Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 168
I.1 CET Program Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 188
I.2 CET Program Four Year Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 189
I.3 Graduation Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 190
J.1 NSF STARS Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 192
J.2 Dean’s Support Letter for CET NSF CCLI Proposal . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 193
J.3 Dean’s Support Letter for CET NSF TUES Proposal . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 194
J.4 Dean’s Support Letter for CET NSF S-STEM Proposal . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 195
J.5 Dean’s Support Letter for CET NSF STEM Proposal . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 196
J.6 Equipment Order: FPGA Development Board . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 199
J.7 Software Upgrade Order: National Instruments LabView . . . .
. . . . . . . 200
K.1 Library Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 204
K.2 Library Funding Allocation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 205
L.1 CET Articulation Agreement with Ivy Tech Community College .
. . . . . . 207
L.2 CET Articulation Agreement with Lakeland Community College .
. . . . . 208
L.3 CET Articulation Agreement with Vincennes University (AS
Degree) . . . . 209
L.4 CET Articulation Agreement with Vincennes University (AAS
Degree) . . . 210
M.1 CET Brochure Page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 212
M.2 CET Brochure Page 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 213
ix
-
Preface
The Indiana State University Department of Electronics and
Computer Engineering Tech-nology is seeking accreditation for its
Computer Engineering Technology (CET) degreeunder the ABET
Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) 2012 criteria.
Originated from the Computer Hardware Technology program, CET
currently has a to-tal enrollment of 60 students for the academic
year 2011-12. Since its inception in 2008, ithas seen 22 students
graduate. The program strictly follows the department, College
anduniversity guidelines for admitting, evaluating, monitoring, and
advising students. In2010, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
awarded the program with a five-year grantSTARS: Sycamore
Technology Academics and Recruitment Scholarships. These
scholar-ships are both need-based and merit-based, and are intended
to support academically wor-thy yet financially challenged freshmen
and transfer students with a special emphasis onimproving
under-represented student population in the program.
Over the years, measurable educational objectives have been
developed under the guid-ance from constituents that fulfill
Indiana State University and the College of Technologymissions, and
ABET requirements. In this self-study report we elaborate the
systematiclearning assessment and evaluation plan that have been
proposed and implemented bythe program for its continuous
improvement. Also included in this report are faculty,facilities,
and institutional profiles to demonstrate the program’s strengths
and availablesupport.
1
-
Chapter 1
Background and Overview
1.1 Degree Title
The Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering
Technology (ECET) at IndianaState University (ISU) requests
accreditation for the degree program of Bachelor of Sciencein
Computer Engineering Technology (CET). The program offers rigorous
education thatprepares students for various computer engineering
technology careers. The curriculum isstructured to provide
proficiencies in fundamental technical subjects and experiences
thatfuse life-long learning with professional ethics.
The CET program is, and has been accredited by Association of
Technology, Manage-ment, and Applied Engineering (ATMAE), formerly
National Association of IndustrialTechnology (NAIT).
1.2 Program Mode and Curriculum Overview
Computer Engineering Technology is a day program designed for on
campus full-timestudents. The program is offered on a semester
basis: one 50-minute lecture or one 100-minute lab session per week
in a sixteen-week semester constitutes one-credit.
The Indiana State University’s academic year consists of Fall,
Spring and Summer ses-sions. During Summer no CET courses are
normally offered, but students may take Foun-dational Studies
courses. Students are encouraged to participate in co-operative
education,summer internships and summer professional
experiences.
The 2011-12 curriculum is attached in Figure I.1 to give the
reviewers a brief overviewof the CET program. The educational
objectives and student outcomes are implementedthrough this
curriculum. Also in Appendix M we have included the latest CET
programbrochure.
2
-
CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW 3
1.3 Department Culture
The composition of department faculty reflects both experience
and growth. Several se-nior faculty have served the College and
department for over three decades and are wellrespected within the
university and local community. They understand the history and
tra-ditions of the programs, and have long established close
relationships with constituents.They also offer invaluable guidance
and mentorship to junior faculty. Under the leadershipof senior
faculty the department has groomed a culture that revolves around
collaborationand consensus. Faculty members share thoughts in an
open and equal environment, andjunior faculty are encouraged to
voice opinions. It is always in this fashion that
decisionsconcerning curriculum and program development are debated
and implemented to assurethat the program and students’ best
interests are served.
The department has developed a mature mechanism to cope with
challenges due to thechanges in the overall educational
environment, and is forthcoming in terms of curriculumadjustment.
Traditional students that came directly out of high school used to
representthe majority of the undergraduate population, however the
last few years have seen theincrease of non-traditional students
and transfer students from neighboring communitycolleges. The
articulation agreements with Ivy Tech Community College and other
two-and four-year schools are the latest example that demonstrates
the department’s acuteadaptation to sustain programs growth and to
provide quality education to those whowish to continue study beyond
an associate degree.
Interaction between faculty and students is always the
cornerstone of departmentalphilosophy for building a healthy and
productive faculty-student relationship. Small classsize and low
student-instructor ratio provide a more open atmosphere for both
partiesto exchange thoughts. Student advising is an element that
weighs heavily in faculty ser-vice, and the process keeps the
faculty in close contact with our current and prospectivestudents
in regards to their academic progress.
1.4 Department Constituents and Feedback Loops
The department’s constituents include current and prospective
students, alumni, studentemployers, and industrial advisory board.
Inputs from these constituents reach the de-partment through
various channels. These inputs along with the responding
mechanismform the basis to assure program refinement.
Current students interact with faculty through classes,
individual meetings and specialevents. Suggestions or shortcomings
raised through these interactions are normally con-cerns at the
course-level and do not affect overall curriculum organization and
content.Faculty respond to these concerns by making
micro-adjustment in teaching pedagogy, ma-terial presentation and
classroom activities. This is considered the inner feedback loop
thatis handled by individual faculty in a relatively short time
frame. Concerns that are beyondthe course-level will be presented
to the entire faculty for discussion, and if legitimate, betaken
into consideration in higher level curricular modifications.
-
CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW 4
Involvement of a wider array of constituents such as advisory
board, alumni and em-ployers seeks inputs for larger perspectives,
namely curriculum and program level adjust-ments. The survey is the
most common format for soliciting feedback. Recruiting andoutreach
are other venues. Faculty study and debate the input, and decide
the actionneeded with respect to the department’s facility,
manpower, and resources. This is consid-ered macro-adjustment as it
may result in changes to curriculum, program objectives
andoutcomes. It demands a longer cycle and even a phased plan to
implement the solutionsgenerated through the process.
1.5 Report Organization
This self-study was developed during the 2011-12 academic year,
and follows the 2012-13criteria approved by the ABET Board of
Directors on October 29, 2011. The report is pre-sented using the
chapter organizational scheme with each chapter dedicated to
addressingone criterion. The chapter titles are as follows:
Chapter 2: Students (Criterion 1)
Chapter 3: Educational Objectives (Criterion 2)
Chapter 4: Student Outcomes (Criterion 3)
Chapter 5: Continuous Improvement and Assessment (Criterion
4)
Chapter 6: Curriculum (Criterion 5)
Chapter 7: Facilities (Criterion 6)
Chapter 8: Faculty (Criterion 7)
Chapter 9: Institutional Support (Criterion 8)
Chapter 10: Program Criteria
1.6 Contact Information
The direct contact personnel for ABET accreditation at ISU for
CET program are: Dr. JoeAshby and Dr. Yuetong Lin. Their contact
information are listed in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2.
-
CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW 5
Dr. Joe Ashby
Chairperson
Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology
Office: TC 301 E Phone: 812-237-3457
Fax: 812-237-3397 Email:[email protected]
Address: Room 301, 101 North Sixth Street, Terre Haute
IN-47809
Table 1.1: Contact Information: Chairperson
Dr. Yuetong Lin
Program Coordinator, Computer Engineering Technology
Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology
Office: TC 301 H Phone: 812-237-3399
Fax: 812-237-3397 Email: [email protected]
Address: Room 301, 101 North Sixth Street, Terre Haute
IN-47809
Table 1.2: Contact Information: Program Coordinator
-
Chapter 2
Students
In this section, we will describe the policies and procedures
instituted by the departmentand program as required by Criterion 1
to evaluate, advise, and monitor students in amanner consistent
with program objectives and student outcomes.
2.1 Undergraduate Student Body
The ECET Department has been offering undergraduate degrees
since 1978. Though hav-ing experienced several cycles of
re-organization, the faculty have always championed thecore value
of excellence in producing high quality graduates.
There are 60 students in the CET program by the end of Spring
2012 semester, withethnic minorities constituting about one-third
of the student population. The program hasgraduated 22 students
since Spring 2009. Our students comprise primarily of residents
ofIndiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. Other states and several foreign
countries are also repre-sented. Most of the students (57 out of
60) are full time traditional students (18 to 23).
Enrollment in the computer engineering technology program
(previously computerhardware technology) has steadily increased
from 30+ students to the current level. Wehope to continue to grow
the program, and are working towards this goal through
strongrecruiting/advertisement effort, and improving
retention/graduation rate. The historicalstatistics are shown in
Table 2.1.
The ECET Department is strongly committed to improving student
diversity. As men-tioned in the Abstract section, the STARS (Figure
J.1) grant was awarded by NSF to helpCET program recruit
academically talented but financially disadvantaged freshmen
andtransfer students over a four-year span. So far African
Americans and females constituteabout one half in the first two
cohorts of scholarship recipients. The department is
activelyinvolved in an annual recruiting event that welcomes female
high school students. Sev-eral ECET labs are the main tour
destinations and faculty members use the opportunity toshowcase the
facility and program strengths. The department is also a major
sponsor forthe Female in Technology forum focusing on interaction
and career opportunity for female
6
-
CHAPTER 2. STUDENTS 7
Academic Enrollment Year Total Degrees Award
Year 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Undergrad Associates Bachelors
CurrentYear
2011FT 16 18 13 10 57
71
PT 0 0 1 2 3
1 2010FT 11 9 11 23 54
4PT 1 1 1 1 4
2 2009FT 2 4 6 18 30
5PT 1 0 1 2 4
3 2008FT 2 0 1 21 24
6PT 1 0 0 0 1
Table 2.1: CET Program Enrollment and Degree Data
technology students.
2.2 Admission
Admittance to ISU at the undergraduate level is handled by the
university AdmissionsOffice. The program has no involvement with
this process. A CET freshman has the sameeligibility requirements
as freshmen in other majors.
2.3 Student Performance Evaluation
To earn a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering technology,
students must completethe subjects in the curriculum, have minimum
GPA of 2.0/4.0 in all work attempted at ISU.Other requirements
include a minimum of 50 hours of 300/400 level courses, and 30
hoursof residency, etc.
Pre-requisites for CET courses are strictly enforced. Passing
the pre-requisite is neces-sary for an adviser to approve student’s
course registration for the following semester. An‘F’ grade in
courses that are pre-requisites for other courses in the curriculum
requires thecourse to be repeated.
2.4 Transfer Student Policies
Transfer students constitute an increasing portion in our
undergraduate population. Mostof our transfers come from
neighboring community colleges. The main factor contributingto this
scenario is the expansion of the two-year junior college system in
Indiana, whichhas been a priority for the state legislatures and
Higher Education Commission to offermore affordable college
education to Indiana residents. This agenda has posed serious
-
CHAPTER 2. STUDENTS 8
competition for enrollment at lower levels for our program. In
the mean time however, thestate is also pressing for an increase in
the rate of two-year graduates continuing to pursuefour-year
bachelor degree. We therefore consider this to be a great
opportunity for futureprogram growth, and with a strategically
crafted transfer plan in place we expect transfersto remain strong
in the coming years.
The CET program has established articulation agreements with
sister programs at sev-eral colleges and regional universities that
allow students to complete an associate degreeand apply credits
towards a bachelor degree at ISU. These institutions include: Ivy
TechCommunity College, Lakeland Community College, and Vincennes
University. Each artic-ulation agreement stipulates the ISU courses
that the transfer students need to complete,along with the
requirements or guidelines that govern the agreement. An associate
degreeholder from these institutions takes the so-called
“block-transfer”, i.e., courses with ac-ceptable grade would
directly substitute ISU equivalents without repeated scrutiny.
Theseagreements help pre-establish course equivalence and ease the
transition to ISU. They arealso reviewed and revised if necessary
every two years to assure the courses are well-aligned on both
ends. The most recent agreements are listed in Figure L.1, Figure
L.2,Figure L.3, and Figure L.4.
Besides the articulations, CET faculty also utilize the
course-by-course approach to eval-uate transfer requests from
students from other schools or programs:
• Transfer students first apply and are admitted to the
university through the regu-lar admissions process. Their records
will be evaluated first by Transfer Central, theon-campus office
that provides a centralized processing primarily for
non-technicalcredits. If there are any questions regarding the
suitability of a substitution or trans-fer course, the program
faculty will be consulted.
• The program will be responsible for reviewing the CET subjects
to determine whetherthey have the rigor and coverage equivalent to
ones in our curriculum. The decisionsare made based on the
syllabus, course description, and other supplemental
materialpresented by students. If a course is not found to be
suitable for substitution, a trans-fer equivalence may not be
granted. A course that is qualified to be university-levelwork in
the technical subjects but cannot be substituted into the
curriculum can becounted towards the general credit hour
requirement or electives.
A maximum of 94 hours of transfer credit may be assigned towards
a bachelor’s degree.However in all cases, the final 45 credits of
the degree program must be earned while inresidence. In August 2005
the department unanimously passed a motion to require alltransfer
students to complete a minimum 15 credits of major courses while
enrolled atISU.
We recognize transfer credits may originate from different
sources. To maintain thecurriculum integrity, the program does not
“grandfather” credits accepted by other insti-tutions and reserves
the right to evaluate according to CET requirements.
-
CHAPTER 2. STUDENTS 9
2.5 Advising
Academic advising is an integral part of the educational
process. The primary purpose ofadvising is to assist students in
the development of meaningful educational plans compat-ible with
the attainment of their life goals.
2.5.1 Adviser and Student Role
The department and program expect advisers to develop the
knowledge, experience, andinterest for effectively communicating
with students in a genuine, sincere, accurate, andconfidential
manner. Students are expected to understand university’s and
program’s re-quirements and accept the responsibility for
fulfilling them. Together advisers and stu-dents should maintain a
professional and mutually respectful relationship as they
reviewstudents’ progress toward the attainment of educational
objectives.
2.5.2 Advising Units
Advising in CET program starts from the freshman year and will
continue through thesenior year. Students have a variety of
advising resources provided by units at the Collegeand department
level. As a student progresses through the academic program, each
ad-vising unit will play a different role, depending on the status
and concern of the student.Key advisement personnel include:
1. Office of undergraduate academic services. The director of
the office is the chiefadministrator in the College for
undergraduate academics. This office oversees allgeneral advising
and curriculum issues.There are several support staff in this
office who help students on advising, schedul-ing and
registration:
• The central academic adviser. This position was created after
the College reor-ganization in Fall 2006 with the goal of having a
centralized advising contact.The advisor handles the advising
requests on a daily basis.
• The central records coordinator. This staff is to assist the
director in organiz-ing and coordinating new students orientation
program (see 2.5.4), assist stu-dents’ registration, process
transfer request, provide information on Founda-tional Studies
requirements, and review degree requirements at the time
ofgraduation.
These staff members establish student contact during the
orientation process. In thehierarchy of advising team they are the
first line of response. Meetings with dean’sstaff are generally on
an “as needed” basis, usually upon student’s request. Having
asingle point of contact provides a convenient and consistent base
for students to seekhelp on issues such as transfer credits,
Foundational Studies, course substitutions,etc.
-
CHAPTER 2. STUDENTS 10
2. Academic adviser. When a student enrolls as a CET major,
he/she is assigned anacademic adviser who is a full-time member of
the faculty. The student will retainthis adviser as long as he/she
feels advising has been productive, thereby enablingthe development
of a closer, more interactive relationship between the two
parties.Students may request a change in their assigned adviser at
any time by contactingthe department chair or program coordinator.
The role of the faculty adviser is toprovide general guidance
regarding CET curriculum and career paths. Each facultyadviser has
a crucial role in monitoring and advising students, and in catching
aca-demic problems before they become serious.
2.5.3 General Advising Policy
It is mandatory for students to arrange advisement meeting with
their adviser at least onceper semester to review progress and
discuss plans and courses for subsequent semesters.The adviser will
evaluate up-to-date DARS to see if there exists a need to adjust
the sched-ule. The meeting is to take place prior to registration
for each semester. All students arerequired to obtain adviser’s
approval on the signed scheduling form before they can reg-ister
on-line for courses. The approval is also indispensable when
students decide to addor drop courses from their schedule.
Besides advisement meetings, advisers routinely monitor each
student’s progress to-wards the degree completion, work carefully
to identify any deficiencies, and communi-cate the concerns to
student through emails and meetings if necessary. In the mean
time,the student may also request more frequent meetings depending
on his/her needs.
In addition to academic advising, advisers also offer counsel
with the help from appro-priate authority on campus to students who
are experiencing emotional, personal or familytroubles. For
students with documented physical and learning disabilities,
advisers willhelp accommodate their special needs following
university guidelines.
2.5.4 New Students Orientation Program
The program is offered in June and early January for fall and
spring semester freshman
During this orientation the freshmen will have the first
experience of academic advis-ing. Not only will they meet with the
entire College level advising team including thedirector of
undergraduate academic services and his/her staff, participating
CET facultymember will have one-on-one session with the students to
introduce important advisingtools such as the university catalog,
program guide sheet, and on-line DARS report. Ad-visers also review
student’s first semester schedule: these courses are pre-registered
basedon their ACT/SAT score and placement test results.
Additionally students learn to search,add or drop courses
on-line.
-
CHAPTER 2. STUDENTS 11
2.5.5 Advising Tools
The main advising tools are the CET curriculum guide sheet and
exemplary four-year plan.
• The guide sheet is a one-page curriculum form that itemizes
all the courses requiredto obtain a degree in CET. For the
student’s program of study, this is a one-page formthat many
students find to be the most useful means for tracking progress
towarddegree completion (Figure I.1)). Student can carry a copy of
the guide sheet as acheck list to monitor academic progress.
• The four-year plan (Figure I.2) arranges the curriculum in a
suggested semester-by-semester track. This document also shows
students when classes are offered (fall,spring, or both).
• Degree Audit Report System (DARS) is the most complete
curriculum tracker avail-able to students through their “isuportal”
link. It is especially convenient for trans-fers and students who
switch majors. Students have easy access to DARS and areexpected to
understand the contents and all legends after the orientation.
2.5.6 Adviser Personal Identification Number (PIN)
For students who have not completed a minimum 63 credits, an
advisement PIN is to beassigned after a complete scheduling form
has been signed by the student’s adviser. Thedepartment secretary
and undergraduate academic services office staff have access to
thisPIN for student inquiry. Students must have the PIN to be able
to register.
2.5.7 Student Record
The department maintains student’s record in separate folder.
The content includes thecourses in which the student is currently
enrolled, which courses have been taken, alongwith student’s grades
and notes of advice to the student. Figure I.3 is the checklist
forgraduation kept by the undergraduate academic services
office.
2.6 Mentoring
It has been part of the department’s culture for faculty to have
an “open-door” policy forstudent visits. The primary role of
mentoring encompasses general non-curriculum re-lated guidance to
student concerns on transition to college, employment perspective,
andprofessional development, etc. Although there is no structured
system for these activities,our department prides itself in
creating an informal and comfortable social atmosphere inwhich
students can routinely communicate with faculty outside classrooms.
Survey re-sults have shown students are satisfied with faculty’s
availability and willingness to servethe mentoring
responsibility.
-
CHAPTER 2. STUDENTS 12
2.7 On-line Undergraduate Academic Information
Internet has become the dominant source to which our students
constantly subscribe in-formation of interest. Great effort has
been spent recently, therefore, to make departmentweb site an
easily accessible outlet for information regarding curriculum,
advising, andcareer advice.
2.8 Student Awards
Several awards sponsored by professional societies and
individual donors recognize out-standing student academics and
services. Among these awards are:
• Kenneth and Zorah (Atkins) Syphax-Rapid Reproduction, Inc.
Scholarship: Studentmust be a full-time student in the College of
Technology and possess a minimumGPA of 2.5
• Thelma F. Mills Scholarship. Students must have completed the
freshman year andhave demonstrated outstanding academic
performance; must be an undergraduatestudent engaged in a
meaningful work experience related to their
vocational/professionalobjectives which does not average more than
20 hours per week during the academicyear.
• ECT Alumni Endowed Scholarship. This scholarship is awarded to
a student whohas declared a major in electronics and computer
technology. The student must be ingood standing with the University
and the Department of Electronics and ComputerEngineering
Technology.
• Pamela and Earl Godt Scholarship. The award is presented once
every two years(alternating with the College of Education) to a
full-time student in the Departmentof Electronics and Computer
Engineering Technology.
• Dr. Leland B. & Ruth Trask Moore Scholarship. Given
annually, the award is pre-sented to a full-time junior level
student majoring in electronics engineering technol-ogy (EET) or
CET with the highest GPA.
• Electronics and Computer Technology Alumni Endowed
Scholarship. The recipi-ent must be in good standing in EET or CET.
The International Society of Automa-tion (ISA) recently committed
financial support for this scholarship. ISA is a leadingglobal
organization that is setting the standard for automation.
The nominations for award recipients are done annually by a
selected faculty member.The faculty nominates the students in
accordance with the award guidelines. The facultymakes the final
decision through comprehensive evaluation.
-
CHAPTER 2. STUDENTS 13
2.9 Tutoring
The rigorous nature of collegiate level study requires tutoring
as an indispensable part ofthe learning process. Tutoring services
for CET students are available through two av-enues:
• Through Academic Opportunity Program at ISU, students have
access for free tutor-ing for most Foundational Studies courses.
Sessions may be arranged on one-to-oneor small study group basis
for either long or short term periods each semester. Someproblems
can even be handled on a “drop-in” basis. These services are
accessibleMonday through Thursday from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM and until
4:30 PM on Fridays.Sunday evening tutoring is available 6:00 PM to
9:00 PM.
• The College of Technology has a centralized tutoring service
coordinated by the Of-fice of Undergraduate Academic Services. The
tutors are of junior/senior standingand have excellent grades and
classroom performance. The hours are from 10:00 AMto 5:00 PM on
weekdays. ECET tutors are responsible for assisting students on
in-troductory circuit analysis, digital logic, computer
programming, and math. Facultyalso offer private tutoring for
students in need when schedule allows.
2.10 Career Guidance
ISU Career Center offers services to prepare, educate and assist
ISU students throughouttheir career development, to prepare them
for a competitive work environment, and topro-actively develop and
maintain effective relationships among students, employers andother
relevant constituencies. Career Center is responsible for hosting
two career fairs ayear on campus. Other services benefiting
students employment include a) MyPlan: aCareer Center on-line
service to help students plan their career; b) CAREERLINK: a
na-tional recruiting network and suite of web based recruiting and
career services automa-tion tools serving the needs of Colleges,
employers and job candidates; c) Networkingetiquette workshop:
workshop that lets students learn about and practice important
net-working and dining skills including conversations; interviewing
tips; proper dress etc;d) Speed interview review workshop: workshop
that lets students practice interviewingskills in group setting
alongside their peers.
-
Chapter 3
Educational Objectives
Educational objectives for the computer engineering technology
program have been devel-oped in conjunction with our constituents
based on, and are consistent with, the missionstatements of parent
units. This chapter contains the mission statements of the
univer-sity and College of Technology, and elaborates the process
by which these objectives weredetermined, how the program ensures
these objectives are achieved, and the systematicassessment to
assure continuous improvement of the program.
It is worth noting that the CET program (and its ancestry
program) has been continu-ously accredited by other agency since
its establishment. This self study report refers to theexisting
well-documented procedure, and incorporates practices tailored to
reflect ABETrequirements.
3.1 Institutional, College and Departmental Missions
3.1.1 Institutional mission
On February 22, 2008, the Indiana State University Board of
Trustees approved the follow-ing revised version of mission
statement and value statement that reflects a commitment
toresearch, public service and a well-rounded education. The
statements were developed bya committee of faculty, staff and
students chaired by Dr. C. Jack Maynard, Indiana State’sprovost and
vice president for academic affairs.
ISU Mission statement. Indiana State University, a doctoral
research university, combines atradition of strong undergraduate
and graduate education with a focus on community and publicservice.
We integrate teaching, research, and creative activity in an
engaging, challenging, andsupportive learning environment to
prepare productive citizens for Indiana and the world.
Values statement.
14
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 15
• We value high standards for learning, teaching, and inquiry.•
We provide a well-rounded education that integrates professional
preparation and
study in the arts and sciences with co-curricular involvement.•
We demonstrate integrity through honesty, civility, and fairness.•
We embrace the diversity of individuals, ideas, and expressions.•
We foster personal growth within an environment in which every
individual matters.• We uphold the responsibility of University
citizenship.• We exercise stewardship of our global community.
The mission and values statement are published at the following
URL: http://www.indstate.edu/whyisu/.
3.1.2 College mission
To cope with the changing conditions related to state funding,
technology, the economy,and student demographics, the College of
Technology underwent a major reorganizationin 2009 that saw the
establishment of five departments. Nonetheless the College
remainsfully committed to its undergraduate mission and the goal to
delivering high quality edu-cation, as reflected in the following
mission statement:
The College of Technology will provide exemplary undergraduate
and graduate programs, gen-erate solutions and knowledge through
research, and serve the technology needs of the State, thenation,
and the international community.
The COT mission statement is also published in university
catalog and on-line at
http://www.indstate.edu/tech/aboutcot/mission.htm.
3.2 Constituencies
We identify the following stake-holders to be the constituencies
with respect to programeducational objectives and student outcomes.
Each group has special interests in thesestated goals:
• Students of CET program. The students expect themselves to
become technicallycompetent, professionally and socially
responsible individuals after earning a bach-elor degree from the
program.
• Alumni. The alumni expect a continued high quality educational
program as theircareer and reputation are associated with the
quality of their alma mater.
• Faculty. The faculty are expected to fulfill their educational
responsibility in leadingthe students in the learning process, and
periodically evaluating and adjusting ifnecessary the teaching
pedagogy pertinent to achieving the educational objectives.
• Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). This selective and highly
involved group of indi-viduals expect to see the program yield
quality graduates that meet industry needs.
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 16
• Student employers. This group expects to hire fresh employees
who are technicallycompetent, productive, self-motivated learners,
team members, and have excellentcommunication skills.
3.3 Program Educational Objectives
Computer Engineering Technology graduates are expected to
demonstrate (short title atthe end of each objective for future
reference in this document):
1. technical proficiency by applying disciplinary reasoning and
critical thinking to iden-tify, analyze and solve problems in
computers, systems integration, automation, dig-ital systems, data
communications, computer networks, and electronics
(TechnicalCompetency).
2. effective communication skills in both oral and written form
to articulate technicalknowledge, ideas, and proposals
(Communication Competency)
3. organizational, and increasing levels of managerial skills in
their chosen field (Man-agerial Competency).
4. the awareness of professional, ethical and social
responsibility and impact of engi-neering technology practices in
Indiana and a diversified world (Responsibility Aware-ness).
5. the ability to function effectively, think independently and
work collaboratively in ateam environment (Teamwork
Competency).
6. individual desire and commitment to remain technically
current by engaging in con-tinuous self-improvement and lifelong
learning (Lifelong Learning Competency).
The program objectives are published on the university on-line
catalog:
http://catalog.indstate.edu/preview
program.php?catoid=7&poid=1218&returnto=140
3.4 Consistency with Missions
The program’s educational objectives correlate well with mission
statements of all parentunits. These statements share the common
educational values: graduating professionallycompetent students who
can serve both as a leader and team member under
differentcircumstances, and understand the impact of their work
both to themselves and society asa whole.
We believe our educational objectives incorporate these
values:
• The first two objectives reflect program’s commitment to
providing quality under-graduate education in both technical and
liberal studies.
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 17
• Objective 3 and 5 address program’s emphasis on students’
team-work mentality inprofessional, community and public
service.
• Objective 4 fulfills program’s contribution to society, and
Indiana in particular, byadvancing students’ awareness on social
and environmental implication of their ca-reer.
• Objective 6 represents program’s commitment to graduates’
long-term productivity.
3.5 Consistency with ABET Criteria
The development of educational objectives also correlates
closely on the skills identifiedunder ABET a-k Criteria. Table 3.1
illustrates the consistency of these statements.
3.6 Developing Educational Objectives
We developed the educational objectives based on several
considerations including ABETcriteria and mission statements of
parent units. In the process we consulted intensivelywith our
constituencies, with primary external source of input being the
industrial advi-sory board. The rationale for this reliance is: due
to the start-up nature of the program,other external
constituencies, such as alumni and employers, all have very limited
num-bers. Therefore we consider IAB’s feedback to be the most
comprehensive and expedientfor our cause.
The process of developing educational objectives started soon
after the program de-cided to adopt the “engineering technology”
name, and began to take shape after a facultyrepresentative
participated the ABET workshop on program evaluation that helped
clar-ify several key components of the procedure. The program
faculty then developed a setof objectives in conjunction with key
constituencies. These objectives were submitted tofaculty for
discussion and revision. In Fall 2009, the latest objectives were
presented to theindustrial advisory board for consultation and
advice. With further modifications the finalversion of objectives
was approved by the faculty.
3.6.1 Process to Determine Educational Objectives
Historical Records
The program has ample, and well-documented discussions with our
constituents–in par-ticular, industrial advisory board –in
establishing educational objectives.
The following segments highlight the relevant records:
IAB meeting minutes We have attached the IAB meeting minutes
from academic year2004-05 when the department started to
contemplate the program title change and curricu-
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 18
ABET 2012 Criteria
anab
ility
tose
lect
and
appl
yth
ekn
owle
dge,
tech
niqu
es,s
kills
,and
mod
ern
tool
sof
the
disc
iplin
eto
broa
dly-
defin
eden
gine
erin
gte
chno
logy
acti
viti
es
anab
ility
tose
lect
and
appl
ya
know
ledg
eof
mat
hem
atic
s,sc
ienc
e,en
gine
erin
g,an
dte
chno
logy
toen
gine
erin
gte
chno
logy
prob
lem
sth
atre
quir
eth
eap
plic
atio
nof
prin
cipl
esan
dap
plie
dpr
oced
ures
orm
etho
dolo
gies
anab
ility
toco
nduc
tst
anda
rdte
sts
and
mea
sure
men
ts;t
oco
nduc
t,an
alyz
e,an
din
terp
rete
xper
imen
ts;a
ndto
appl
yex
peri
men
talr
esul
tsto
impr
ove
proc
esse
s
anab
ility
tode
sign
syst
ems,
com
pone
nts,
orpr
oces
ses
for
broa
dly-
defin
eden
gi-
neer
ing
tech
nolo
gypr
oble
ms
appr
opri
ate
topr
ogra
med
ucat
iona
lobj
ecti
ves
anab
ility
tofu
ncti
onef
fect
ivel
yas
am
embe
ror
lead
eron
ate
chni
calt
eam
anab
ility
toid
enti
fy,a
naly
ze,a
ndso
lve
broa
dly-
defin
eden
gine
erin
gte
chno
logy
prob
lem
s
anab
ility
toap
ply
wri
tten
,ora
l,an
dgr
aphi
cal
com
mun
icat
ion
inbo
thte
chni
cal
and
non-
tech
nica
len
viro
nmen
ts;
and
anab
ility
toid
enti
fyan
dus
eap
prop
riat
ete
chni
call
iter
atur
e
anun
ders
tand
ing
ofth
ene
edfo
ran
dan
abili
tyto
enga
gein
self
-dir
ecte
dco
ntin
u-in
gpr
ofes
sion
alde
velo
pmen
t
anun
ders
tand
ing
ofan
da
com
mit
men
tto
addr
ess
prof
essi
onal
and
ethi
calr
espo
n-si
bilit
ies
incl
udin
ga
resp
ectf
ordi
vers
ity
akn
owle
dge
ofth
eim
pact
ofen
gine
erin
gte
chno
logy
solu
tion
sin
aso
ciet
alan
dgl
obal
cont
ext
aco
mm
itm
entt
oqu
alit
y,ti
mel
ines
s,an
dco
ntin
uous
impr
ovem
ent
Educ
atio
nalO
bjec
tive
s TechnicalCompetency
X X X X X
Communicationskills
X X
Managerialskills
X X X X
Professional,ethical & socialresponsibility
X X X
Team respon-sibility
X X X X
Lifelong learn-ing
X X
Table 3.1: Relationship between Educational Objectives and ABET
Program Criteria
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 19
lum revision, to academic year 2007-08 when the CET program was
officially established,in Appendix A, from Figure A.1 to Figure
A.4. The following excerpts highlight the dis-cussions on the CET
program, and the exchange of ideas in each meeting pertinent to
theCET program objectives:
1. April 25 2005 IAB meeting (Figure A.1 on P. 77)
Prof. Ashby and Dr. Raeisi reported for the Computer Hardware
Sub-committee. They discussed the proposal to revise the Computer
HardwareProgram and asked for help in finding opportunities for our
students. Thepurpose of the program modification is in response to
changes in industry.The proposed 4-year plan was presented and
discussed course by course.Several new courses are included in this
plan. J. R. Musselman noted theaddition of several new courses and
asked if old courses had been elimi-nated or combined. Dr. Croft
clarified what is being done. He also talkedabout how the Computer
Hardware major and Electronics major curric-ula currently look
almost identical except for only 4 courses. David Adlerasked about
server technology. What course or courses would include
thatmaterial? Brian Bridgewater asked about other networks besides
Ethernetnetworking such as bus networks. Dr. Cockrell noted that we
no longer areworking with components. This has become a “systems
world”. J.R. Mus-selman expressed that he saw this program
modification as a great move.He said that we must think about the
future, and that the U.S. is becomingless of a manufacturing
country and is moving more toward InformationTechnology. He asked
about Information Security. He was concerned asto whether we were
including courses covering security. Brian Bridgewa-ter mentioned a
need for people to understand Data Segregation. Dr. Croftsaid that
sometime between now and the next meeting the department willbe
asking for input from the Advisory Board members on the
proposedcurriculum. Brian Bridgewater and J.R. Musselman talked
about WirelessTechnology and how it can be applied to the plant
floor. Mr. Musselmanapplauds our efforts and thought we are on the
right path but also advisedus to look to the future. A Computer
Hardware Technology Survey wasincluded in the materials given to
the Advisory Board members. Dr. Croftasked the board to answer the
questions on the survey and return themto the ECT Department by
June. There was also some discussion aboutthe name of the program
and if it conveys what the major is about. Mr.Adler mentioned the
possibility of using the word “Infrastructure” in theprogram
name.
2. April 07 2006 IAB meeting (Figure A.2 on P. 78)
Dr. Raeisi explained that the program was very similar to the
Electron-ics Technology program and that was the reason for
revision. The Programhas undergone a 2 year review. We are
presenting the results of that review
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 20
and we ask for comments from the Advisory Board. New emerging
tech-nology courses are to be offered in the revised program. Some
courses havebeen eliminated from the old program and new ones
added. Mr. Bridge-water asked if we based our benchmark against
Computer Engineeringdegrees? Dr. Raeisi and Prof. Ashby gave a
course by course overview ofthe courses to be included in the new
program. Mr. Bridgewater asked ifany course would cover industry
standards such as S95? Dr. Croft askedfor input–we on the right
track, have we missed anything? Ms. Nakan-ishi commented that some
200 level courses have been re-numbered as100 level courses. Mr.
Bridgewater asked how we will differentiate our-selves from MIS or
IT majors. Dr. Croft replied that the revised programwill move us
to look like MSI or IT majors, but with much more added.We will
keep the IT side but will retain the industrial flavor. Dr.
Cock-rell explained that in 1981 the program was called Computer
Technologyand later changed to Computer Hardware Technology. Mr.
Bridgewaterasked if our vision for the program is plant floor
perspective or IT per-spective. He sees too much computer design.
Mr. Watler agreed. Thosethings are not needed in industry. Dr.
Croft explained that we need toproduce a person who is employable
in all facets and useful in the mar-ketplace. Mr. Bridgewater added
that our graduates need to be able to“program it, understand it,
and communicate it”. Ms. Nakanishi sees aproduct design person
coming out of this program more than overall sys-tems integration.
Mr. Roop: (1) In the power industry, there is a need forthe
Computer Hardware program and that is the type of person they
lookfor. (2) Small and medium sized businesses are driving the
economy andthis Computer Hardware Program fulfills their needs. Mr.
Watler said thatcareful advising will be needed to know what
direction a student wouldwant to take. Mr. Roop wants to challenge
us to be visionary– what will beneeded for the future. Mr. Watler
felt like he got from the ECT Departmenta very good foundation for
what he needed in his career. Mr. Bridgewatersuggested that plant
tours would be very beneficial, and that after toursstudents should
be asked what route they want to take–plant floor or IT?We could
ask alumni to give plant tours.
3. April 13 2007 IAB meeting (Figure A.3 on P. 79)
Computer Engineering Technology. Dr. Croft explained the
processthat has gone into revising the old Computer Hardware
Technology pro-gram which has become the new Computer Engineering
Technology ma-jor. The ECT Department has surveyed Advisory Board
members, alumni,students, etc. After examining other programs
across the country we foundthat we were already a Computer
Engineering Technology program. Wejust didn’t have the name. Former
students said that the “name” wouldhave made a difference in the
type of job they could get. The accredit-ing group would change
from NAIT to TAC-ABET. Dr. Croft described
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 21
the new curriculum and the courses. Mr. Roop: ‘Awesome, this
hits ex-actly what we need in industry.’ Mr. Musselman: “I don’t
see anythingon computer security”. The faculty has worked on this
program revisionand voted to approve. Dr. Croft asked for a vote
(7-0-0) from the Board toproceed.
4. April 11 2008 IAB meeting (Figure A.4 on P. 80)
Current accreditation is from NAIT. A consultant from TAC-ABET
iscoming later this month to consider accreditation.
Program faculty emails with the IAB members In Appendix D we
include samples ofemails between CET faculty Dr. Bill Croft and the
IAB members during the period thatleads to the program name change.
These emails demonstrate the serious discussionsbetween the
stake-holders on program future direction and potential curricular
changes.
IAB survey to approve Program Educational Objectives CET program
objectives werecrafted after careful deliberations and sent out to
the IAB members for approval. Thereturns are shown in Appendix D:
Figure D.3 represents the survey returns summary; andFigure D.4 to
Figure D.7 are copies of individual IAB member returns. As these
evidencesuggest, the board unanimously approved the proposed
educational objectives statements.
We believe these records unequivocally indicate that the program
has reached out toIAB members. Their suggestions on program future
direction have been assimilated incrafting educational
objectives.
3.7 Assessing Educational Objectives
The data to assess how effectively graduates have met these
objectives come from a vari-ety of sources. The program has in
place the following instruments to continuously collectmeasurable
and objective data: a) Survey of advisory board; b) Survey of
alumni; c) Sur-vey of employers.Though differences exist in the
content of the surveys to target differentgroups, all surveys have
similar format and share some common questions that are in-tended
to poll the respondents to evaluate these statements with respect
to the industrydemands for CET professionals. For returnees who
raise concerns about certain aspectsof educational objectives
through survey gradings, we request them provide textual com-ments
on proper ways of improvements. To improve the response rate and
expedite theturn-around time, all the surveys are available online
through ISU web site.
Two performance criteria, i.e., “Degree of Importance”, and
“Degree of Readiness”,have been established to evaluate survey
responses. Both criteria are assessed through afive-level rubric as
shown in Table 3.2.
The three types of surveys carry equal weight in the overall
indices for importance andreadiness, which is calculated by
averaging the survey returns from the three categories.
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 22
Performance CriteriaRubric
1 2 3 4 5
Degree of Importance Very Inappropriate Inappropriate Neutral
Appropriate Very Appropriate
Degree of Readiness Significantly under-prepared Under-prepared
Neutral Well-prepared Very well-prepared
Table 3.2: Educational Objectives Performance Rubric
The index for Criterion “Degree of Importance” takes inputs from
all surveys, while Cri-terion “Degree of Readiness” index replies
only the feedback from alumni and employers.The following formula
shows the calculation of the overall index for “Degree of
Impor-tance” of Objective 1, Technical Competency:
ITechnical Competency =13
Ialumni +13
IIAB +13
Iemployer (3.1)
Similarly, the index for “Degree of Readiness” can be calculated
by:
ITechnical Competency =12
Ialumni +12
Iemployer (3.2)
for Objective 1.
Three levels of overall index benchmarks are adopted by the
program. Table 3.3 liststhese benchmarks, interpretations, and
corresponding program actions pertinent to theeducational
objectives evaluating process.
3.7.1 Advisory board survey
A copy of the advisory board survey is shown in Figure D.1 on
Page 97. The form isdistributed in spring semester to board
members. The results are collected and savedfor future reference.
Many of our board members work for companies and organizationsthat
frequently hire graduates of our program. They have the experience
and technicalexpertise to provide a fair and candid view of skills
required in workplace.
3.7.2 Alumni survey
The emphasis of alumni survey is to collect recent graduates’
professional accomplish-ments pertinent to the validity and
achievements of educational objectives. Alumni in-cluded in the
survey ought to be in the workforce for a while so that they have
experienceto properly reflect on their college careers.
The questionnaire is designed to minimize the time required to
complete. Main ques-tions include: the extent of involvement in
professional societies, advancement in graduatestudy or
professional certification, and promotion within the organizations
for job perfor-mance. The survey is intended to be conducted on a
three-year cycle, with each survey
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 23
BenchmarkLevel Criterion Interpretation Actions
Level A Overall performanceindex ≥ 4 AND noindividual
surveycategory returnsaverage ≤ 3
The specific ob-jective meetsconstituents’ andindustrial
need
The program contin-ues to implement theelements in the
cur-riculum that corre-late with this objec-tive
Level B Overall performanceindex ≥ 3.5 ANDno individual
surveycategory returns av-erage ≤ 3
The constituentsgenerally approvethe significance,and/or are
satisfiedwith graduates’readiness of thespecific objective
Adjustments incurriculum or teach-ing pedagogy areneeded.
Level C Overall performanceindex ≤ 3.5 OR indi-vidual survey
cate-gory returns average≤ 3
Constituents haveserious concernsabout the appro-priateness,
and/orreadiness of ourgraduates in meet-ing the objective
The objective needsto be re-developed,or curriculum needsa
significant over-haul to address theissue
Table 3.3: Educational Objectives Assessment Benchmarks,
Interpretations, and ProgramActions
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 24
samples graduates from different graduation years. Once a
graduate has been sampled,he/she will not be surveyed again. A
sample copy of the survey is attached in Figure E.1on Page 120.
3.7.3 Employers survey
The survey is designed to both assess the achievement of our
objectives and review theirappropriateness. It correlates closely
with the alumni survey in that the companies/organizationsbeing
polled are the current employers of our graduates who are included
in the alumnisurvey. This provides a side-by-side comparison from
different perspectives, and allowsus to gauge any disconnects
between how our graduates view our objectives, and howthey are
viewed by the outside world. A sample of this survey is shown in
Figure F.1 onPage 158.
3.8 Evaluating Educational Objectives
Evaluation is to identify areas in educational objectives that
warrant improvement, de-velop practical strategies for achieving
such improvement, and ultimately implement andmonitor whether or
not these strategies have successfully accomplished their
intent.
Changing educational objectives is a serious academic issue, it
therefore needs to beapproached in both a prudent and proactive
manner. We also understand given the lim-ited resources we have in
the program, i.e., active faculty, administrative support, etc,
theevaluation should grow gradually in terms of complexity and
completeness.
The process for evaluating the educational objectives begins
with data collection by theprogram and individual faculty. The data
are then assessed(see Section 3.7). The programcoordinator is
leading this effort, and responsible for reporting the compiled
results to thefaculty and advisory board.
Currently we are planning a three-year review cycle to assure
any change to be imple-mented is in response to a consistent trend
and not an aberration. At the end of the secondyear, program
faculty will identify the components that need to be strengthened,
included,or removed from objectives based on the feedback from the
three surveys. The key ques-tion that needs to be answered in the
process is: are the objectives meeting the needs ofour
constituents? The third year will initiate the revision process if
necessary: programfaculty will be responsible for developing a
draft with proper language; advisory board’sopinions and suggested
modifications will be solicited during annual board meeting.
Theapproval of final language rests in the department faculty.
The program will publish any changes to the program mission and
educational objec-tives online, in undergraduate catalog and other
outlets that directly interface with con-stituencies.
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 25
3.9 Educational Objectives Evaluation Flowchart
The aforementioned process for evaluating and revising
educational objectives, strategies,and outcomes is illustrated in
detail in Figure 3.1, proposed by Dr. Gloria Rogers, Asso-ciate
Executive Director of ABET Professional Services. The figure shows
the feedbackloops that lead to continuous refinement of educational
objectives and curriculum im-provement. Data sources and the
respective individuals or units in charge of each link
arehighlighted. The loop that involves educational objectives
review and update is executedevery three years, it assures periodic
evaluation and redefinition (if necessary) of the cur-rent
educational objectives and outcomes. The student outcomes and
curriculum reviewloop is executed annually, and focuses primarily
on outcomes assessment and curricularimprovements. The two cycles
are linked together through student outcomes report.
-
CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 26
Figu
re3.
1:Pr
ogra
mEv
alua
tion
Flow
char
t
-
Chapter 4
Student Outcomes
In this chapter, we describe CET student outcomes; their
relations with program educa-tional objectives and ABET a-k
criteria; and the instruments we apply for outcomes
assess-ment.
4.1 Student Outcomes
CET student outcomes are to fulfill program educational
objectives (Section 3.3, ProgramEducational Objectives), encompass
ABET general criteria (Criteria a-k listed in Criterion3), and
address specific criteria for computer engineering technology
program. To thisend, the following outcomes have been developed
that represent the desired capabilitiesof students upon
graduation:
1. the ability to apply principles of mathematics, science,
engineering technology, andprogramming languages to solve technical
problems in computers, digital systems,computer networks, data
communications, electronics, and automation.
2. the ability to incorporate systematic methods and emerging
technology to identify,formulate, and generate original solutions
within the fields of computer engineeringtechnology.
3. the ability to conduct experiments competently in a
laboratory setting.
4. the ability to apply fundamental management principles and
techniques in businessoperations, and display leadership qualities
in organizing teams and reconciling dif-ferences.
5. the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility,
and the impact of tech-nology in a global and social context.
6. the ability to engage in life-long learning to pursue
increasing knowledge of currentand emerging technical and
non-technical issues.
27
-
CHAPTER 4. STUDENT OUTCOMES 28
7. the ability to function effectively in a multi-disciplinary
team and respect membersof various background and personality.
8. the ability to communicate with clarity and conciseness both
verbally and in writingwith peers, clients and targeted
audience.
4.2 Relationship of Student Outcomes to Educational
Objectivesand ABET Criteria
We view student outcomes as measurable effects of our
curriculum. The particular choiceof outcomes was strongly
influenced by our program objectives. As such, there is
closecorrespondence between them, which is best illustrated in the
matrix shown in Table 4.1
4.3 Student Outcomes and Course Learning Objectives
The CET curriculum is designed to support the eight outcomes
with one or more technicalor foundational studies courses. By
mapping individual course learning objectives to theappropriate
outcomes, we can use the results to identify the areas of
strengths, and todevelop strategies to address the weaknesses.
Table 4.2 shows the connections betweenprogram curriculum and the
outcomes.
-
CHAPTER 4. STUDENT OUTCOMES 29
CET Student Outcomes
EducationalObjectives,Student Outcomesand ABET
GeneralCriteriaMatrix
appl
ypr
inci
ples
ofm
athe
mat
ics,
scie
nce,
engi
neer
ing
tech
nol-
ogy,
and
prog
ram
min
gla
ngua
ges
toso
lve
tech
nica
lpro
blem
s
use
mod
ern
com
puta
tion
alan
dsi
mul
atio
nto
ols
inco
rpor
ate
syst
emat
icm
etho
dsan
dem
ergi
ngte
chno
logy
toid
enti
fy,f
orm
u-la
te,a
ndge
nera
teor
igin
also
luti
ons
cond
uct
expe
rim
ents
com
pete
ntly
ina
labo
rato
ryse
ttin
g;co
llect
and
crit
i-ca
llyex
amin
eda
ta;i
nter
pret
,rep
orta
ndap
ply
resu
lts
appl
yfu
ndam
enta
lm
anag
emen
tpr
inci
ples
and
tech
niqu
es,
and
disp
lay
lead
ersh
ip
unde
rsta
ndth
eim
pact
ofte
chno
logy
ina
glob
alan
dso
cial
con-
text
,and
deve
lop
prof
essi
onal
and
ethi
calr
espo
nsib
ility
.
enga
gein
life-
long
lear
ning
topu
rsue
incr
easi
ngkn
owle
dge
ofcu
rren
tand
emer
ging
tech
nica
land
non-
tech
nica
liss
ues
com
mun
icat
eef
fect
ivel
yan
dre
spec
tful
lyw
ith
mem
bers
ofva
r-io
usba
ckgr
ound
and
pers
onal
ity
inm
ulti
-dis
cipl
inar
yte
ams
com
mun
icat
ew
ith
clar
ity
and
conc
isen
ess
both
verb
ally
and
inw
riti
ngw
ith
peer
s,cl
ient
san
dta
rget
edau
dien
ce
ABET Criteria a,b,f a,c a,b,d a,c e, g i, j h,k g,i,j g
CET
Educ
atio
nalO
bjec
tive
Technicalcompe-tency
X X X X
Communicationskills
X X
Managerialskills
X X X
Mature re-sponsibility
X X
Teamworkmentality
X X X
Lifelonglearning
X X
Table 4.1: Correspondence between Educational Objectives,
Student Outcomes, and ABETa-k Criteria
-
CHAPTER 4. STUDENT OUTCOMES 30
Table 4.2: Correspondence between CET curriculum andStudent
Outcomes
CET Student Outcomes
Curriculum v.s.Student OutcomesMatrix
appl
ypr
inci
ples
ofm
athe
mat
ics,
scie
nce,
engi
neer
ing
tech
nol-
ogy,
and
prog
ram
min
gla
ngua
ges
toso
lve
tech
nica
lpro
blem
s
use
mod
ern
com
puta
tion
alan
dsi
mul
atio
nto
ols
inco
rpor
ate
syst
emat
icm
etho
dsan
dem
ergi
ngte
chno
logy
toid
enti
fy,f
orm
ulat
e,an
dge
nera
teor
igin
also
luti
ons
cond
uct
expe
rim
ents
com
pete
ntly
ina
labo
rato
ryse
ttin
g;co
llect
and
crit
i-ca
llyex
amin
eda
ta;i
nter
pret
,rep
orta
ndap
ply
resu
lts
appl
yfu
ndam
enta
lm
anag
emen
tpr
inci
ples
and
tech
niqu
es,
and
disp
lay
lead
ersh
ip
unde
rsta
ndth
eim
pact
ofte
chno
logy
ina
glob
alan
dso
cial
con-
text
,and
deve
lop
prof
essi
onal
and
ethi
calr
espo
nsib
ility
.
enga
gein
life-
long
lear
ning
topu
rsue
incr
easi
ngkn
owle
dge
ofcu
rren
tand
emer
ging
tech
nica
land
non-
tech
nica
liss
ues
com
mun
icat
eef
fect
ivel
yan
dre
spec
tful
lyw
ith
mem
bers
ofva
r-io
usba
ckgr
ound
and
pers
onal
ity
inm
ulti
-dis
cipl
inar
yte
ams
com
mun
icat
ew
ith
clar
ity
and
conc
isen
ess
both
verb
ally
and
inw
riti
ngw
ith
peer
s,cl
ient
san
dta
rget
edau
dien
ce
CET
Cur
ricu
lum
ECT 130 X X X XECT 165 X X XECT 167 X X XECT 168 X X XECT 231 X
X XECT 232 X X XECT 281 X X XECT 301 X X XECT 303 X X XECT 306 X X
XECT 308 X X XECT 401 X X XECT 403 X X XECT 406 X X X X X X X X
XECT 430 X X X
Continued on Next Page. . .
-
CHAPTER 4. STUDENT OUTCOMES 31
Table 4.2 – Continued
Out
com
e1
Out
com
e2
Out
com
e3
Out
com
e4
Out
com
e5
Out
com
e6
Out
com
e7
Out
com
e8
Out
com
e9
ECT 437 X X XMgmt. X X XCS 256 XMATH 115 X XMATH 301 X
XEng101/105,301
X X
COMM 101 X XLiberalstudies
X X X X
4.4 Developing Student Outcomes
We believe these student outcomes represent the foundation of
knowledge and skills forCET graduates to maintain competence and
achieve professional success upon graduation.
These outcomes were developed and approved by CET faculty during
the preparationfor ABET accreditation. The faculty are responsible
for collecting, reviewing, and inter-preting information drawn from
the designated courses. The outcomes assessment resultsare
discussed at the program faculty meetings, where issues regarding
student outcomesare identified and viable strategies are
developed.
4.5 Assessment Tools
The program has decided to adopt ECT 406 Senior Project as the
primary direct measure,ECT 130 Introduction to Electronics and
Computer Technology as the secondary directmeasure, and senior exit
surveys and alumni surveys as the indirect measures to assesshow
well individual student outcomes are met. Given the start-up nature
of our programand current manpower, these measures are selected
because they are simple, effective, andinformative.
4.5.1 Performance Criteria
Each outcome needs to be assessed by performance criteria. The
criteria have to be specific,measurable, and confirmable through
evidence. Based on this principle, the followingcriteria have been
created.
-
CHAPTER 4. STUDENT OUTCOMES 32
1. Outcome 1: Problem solving skills
1. 1 apply algebra, discrete math, and basic law of physics to
build, test, and operateelectric circuits, computer systems and
networks.
1. 2 program in low/high-level computer languages.
1. 3 understand database principle and working mechanism.
2. Outcome 2: Design skills
2. 1 design and implement microcontroller based control
applications.
2. 2 develop digital logic circuitry using FPGA and HDL.
2. 3 design and implement LAN/WAN for small business
environment.
3. Outcome 3: Hands-on skills
3. 1 conduct experiments to observe or truthfully record results
following manualor proposed steps.
3. 2 apply simulation tools to verify theoretical design or
trouble-shoot system prob-lems.
3. 3 examine and interpret lab results to draw conclusions.
3. 4 follow safety procedure and lab protocols, handle
equipments with care.
4. Outcome 4: Managerial skills
4. 1 develop work plan with clearly-defined phased goals and
time-line.
4. 2 follow work plan by observing time line and reporting
progress; make timelyadjustment to cope with unforeseen
circumstances
5. Outcome 5: Ethics and diversity awareness
5. 1 analyze ethics issues based on professional ethics
codes.
5. 2 understand technology impact on society and
environment.
6. Outcome 6: Lifelong learning
6. 1 involve in professional societies.
6. 2 be able to research the latest technological trend in a
specific area using crediblesources.
7. Outcome 7: Teamwork skills
7. 1 understand individual role and share duties.
7. 2 listen to others; cooperate with teammates; respect
different opinions.
8. Outcome 8: Communication skills
8. 1 produce technical document that is factually correct, with
good logical struc-ture, proper format, citation, and
references.
-
CHAPTER 4. STUDENT OUTCOMES 33
8. 2 produce technical document with a minimum of errors in
spelling, punctuation,grammar and usage.
8. 3 communicate in professional manner, and respond to
questions in language thatis both concise and commensurate with
audience’s background.
4.5.2 Rubric
A rubric is a scoring guide that is used to measure the work of
a student. For each ofthe performance criteria above, we use a
rubric with range of one(1) to four(4) to rateperformance. Each
rubric contains specific characteristics arranged in levels to
indicatethe degree to which a standard has been met. Table 4.3 to
Table 4.10 show the rubric foreach student outcome.
4.6 Assessment Plan
The assessment plan is shown in Table 4.11.
-
CHAPTER 4. STUDENT OUTCOMES 34
Performance Crite-ria
RubricUnsatisfactory Developing Competent Exemplary1 2 3 4
apply algebra,discrete math,and basic law ofphysics to
test,trouble-shoot andoperate electriccircuits, com-puter systems
andnetworks
lacks fun-damentalmath skillsand scienceconcepts,cannot
in-dependentlyconduct di-agnosis andtesting.
has basicunderstand-ing of mathand scienceconcepts andlaws,
canoperate sys-tems withsupervision
has solidmath and sci-ence knowl-edge, canoperate sys-tems but
mayneed minordirectionson trouble-shooting
has solidmath skillsand under-standingof scienceconcepts,can
inde-pendentlyoperate sys-tems, identityand solveproblem
program inlow/high-levelcomputer lan-guages
lacks under-standing ofsyntax andsemanticsof the lan-guages;
can-not developalgorithm;cannot usedevelopmenttools
has basicunderstand-ing of thelanguagesand develop-ment
tools;needs directguidanceto developalgorithms toimplementthe
appli-cations or