electrical engineering assessment reportschneidj/assessment/annual… · web viewelectrical...

Electrical Engineering Assessment Report For 2007/2008 Academic Year

This Annual Assessment report summarizes the assessment activities for the academic year 2007-2008. The new assessment process that was adapted from Spring 2006 continues to be working well. There was 75% and 73% compliance respectively in submission of assessment reports for all undergraduate courses that were taught during Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 semesters. Concerns and action items from the current 2007-2008 academic year assessment process are discussed first in Section 1. Progress on action items from the previous year is summarized in Section 2.

The Electrical Engineering (EE) program had its second site visit in Fall 2007. A summary of one concern and one observation from the draft statement from ABET EAC visit is included in Appendix A along with the reply from School of EECS. A summary of the present BSEE assessment process together with the course assessment template is presented in Appendix B. A flow-chart has been developed for the EE curriculum and is enclosed in Appendix C. This is followed by an itemized review of different assessment measures in Appendices D through H. The appendices provide the details on various assessment measures as well as recommendations from faculty.

The major changes in the EE curriculum in the academic year approved in the current academic year 2007-2008 are summarized first.

1) Our BSEE degree program has a long-standing emphasis on faculty-student interactions. To help ensure that this continues to be the case, we have, formalized a new faculty advisor program to ensure undergraduates engage in broad professional discussions with the faculty. This program was discussed by the entire faculty in an October 2007 meeting where the new advising and mentoring procedures for pre-certification students were considered. In the following faculty meeting at the end of November 2007, a revised advising program was unanimously approved by the faculty to be effective beginning the Fall 2008 semester. This program requires students, beginning as freshmen, meet with a faculty mentor at least four times: 1) at the beginning of the degree program; 2) after one year; 3) at certification; and 4) before beginning technical electives and option courses. Transfer students will see a mentor starting at whatever point they enter the department. Faculty mentors will notify academic advisors when meetings with mentors have taken place. Finally, students will give feedback regarding the quality of mentoring they have received and that information will be compiled and forwarded to the Director. This feedback will be considered in the annual reviews of the faculty.

2) To improve the depth of BSEE program in addressing advanced EE topics, EE Curriculum committee approved a minor change that two out of the four required EE technical electives must be 400-level EE courses. This change is also effective from Fall 2008.

The EE curriculum underwent a few changes in the previous year 2006/2007 as noted next:

1) As part of the continuing assessment of EE applications of probability and statistics in BSEE degree program, the EE curriculum was modified as follows: EE faculty changed the probability requirement to be either of Math 360 Probability and Statistics or Math 443 Applied Probability. Math 360 is a junior level Math class that can be taken by the EE students in the second semester of the Junior year, a semester earlier than Math 443 in the old BSEE curriculum. The Math probability course is now followed by two required EE courses that show probability applications. The first required course is an EE special Technical Elective to be chosen from among four EE 400 level courses EE432 (RF Engineering for Telecommunications), EE451 (Digital Communication Systems), EE491 (Performance of Power Systems), and EE496 (Introduction to Semiconductor Device Theory). All these four courses require Math 360 or Math 443 as a prerequisite, and include at least two weeks coverage of probability and statistics applications to an EE problem. Math 360 has also been made a co-requisite for EE341 Signals and Systems, which now includes EE applications of probability concepts. The changes became effective from Fall 2007. 2) In order to address concerns on programming course requirements in the BSEE curriculum, EE faculty approved removal of the two-course sequence, CS121 and CS122, with 8 credits of programming classes. Instead, the EE students will be required to take a 3 credit C programming course CS251 and two credits of a new programming course EE221 Numerical Computing for Engineers that introduces Matlab programming for solving numerical analysis applications in engineering. The changes became effective from Spring 2007. The EE Curriculum Committee (CC) will monitor the effectiveness of the new programming classes on the subsequent EE core classes in the following semesters.

Syllabi for the courses are largely the same as those from last year. The syllabi are available along with the list of approved technical electives, and the area specific assessment plans at the EECS website http://school.eecs.wsu.edu/Undergraduate/ElectricalEngineering/EESyllabi/

The main action item identified by CC for the next academic year is summarized first. Detailed discussion of these action items and the measures and concerns that led to these action items is presented in the first section on assessment activities.

(2008.A1) A complete revisiting of the EE curriculum to develop various special tracks within the EE curriculum such as a system track, a power system track, a microelectronics track and possibly a electro-physics track to better coordinate the required courses and electives within these individual tracks. Accordingly each area faculty have been requested to come up with draft program schedules for the individual tracks. EE curriculum committee will focus on streamlining the requirements and electives from various tracks towards meeting ABET requirements as well as BSEE objectives and outcomes in the next academic year.

A summary of the EE curriculum activities in addressing the topics from previous year is presented next:

http://school.eecs.wsu.edu/Undergraduate/ElectricalEngineering/EESyllabi/

(2007.A1) Coordination of design topics: Microelectronics faculty recommended better coordination of topics between EE311 and EE352. As noted above, Curriculum committee will revisit the question in the context of multiple EE tracks in the next year.(2007.A2) Coverage and assessment of engineering ethics: EE faculty were encouraged to discuss engineering ethics topics in the EE courses with emphasis in the EE senior elective classes. The new EE requirement that at least two of out of four technical electives must be EE 400-level courses will improve EE students exposure to the coverage of engineering ethics topics in the 400-level courses.(2007.A3) Improve effectiveness of Senior Curricular Debrief session report: Students in the senior design courses EE415 and EE416 are being exposed to the assessment tool, curricular debrief, through exposure to the technique during the regular course offerings. The effectiveness of the curricular debrief report will continue to be monitored.(2007.A4) Coverage of EE applications of probability and statistics in the five EE courses EE341, EE432, EE451, EE491 and EE496: The initial feedback from the students has been positive on the coverage of probability and statistics within the five EE courses. This topic will be assessed through relevant course reports as well as other measures.(2007.A5) Programming skills of EE students who have completed CS251 and EE221: The recent changes to programming requirements appear to have resulted in mixed success. While the new course requirement of CS251 and EE221 appear to have helped improve the retention rate, there is continuing concern among EE faculty that the students are lacking in adequate programming skills. Curriculum committee plans to revisit the question of required programming classes as part of the curriculum revision planned for next year.

Table of Contents:

1. Assessment Activities2. Action Items from last year reportAppendix A. EECS reply to 2007 ABET EAC Draft StatementAppendix B. EE Mission Statement and Assessment Plan Appendix C. EE Curriculum FlowchartAppendix D. EE Senior Design Assessment ReportsAppendix E. Systems Area Assessment Summary ReportAppendix F. Microelectronics Area Assessment Summary ReportAppendix G. EE Senior Curricular Debrief Session ReportAppendix I. EE Curriculum Presentation to IAB

1. Assessment Activities

All the EE course assessment reports for the 2006-2007 year can be seen fromhttp://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~schneidj/Assessment/ee.html According to our EE Assessment plan, the key courses that provide significant feedback on many of the BSEE program outcomes A through K are the senior design courses EE 415 and EE 416. These two courses were taught by Profs. Patrick Pedrow and Scott Campbell this academic year. The reports from the Prof. Pedrow are included in Appendix D along with the design course summary report from Prof. Pedrow. The evaluators for the two courses include external industry members who then provide valuable assessment feedback from the industry perspective. In general, the course reports indicate that all the main outcomes assessed by the courses were met in the curriculum. Prof. Pedrow has made several specific recommendations and their main observations are listed first:

2008. 1Concern: Weak teaming skillsCC Recommendation: CC encourages following up on this topic with the entire EE faculty. CTLT is also helping in this regard.

2008.2Concern: Qualification of students entering EE415 and EE416.CC Recommendation: CC recently modified the pre-requisites for EE415 to explicitly require all the required 300-level EE courses to be completed before a student can enroll in EE415. We will monitor the effectiveness of the change.

2008.3Concern: Weak programming skillsCC Recommendation: CC plans to revisit the programming requirements in the BSEE curriculum in the next academic year. A topic for discussion is whether to revert to the more rigorous computer science programming classes CS121 and CS122 in the BSEE program.

The systems area courses EE221 (Numerical methods), EE 321 (Electrical Circuits II), EE 341 (Signals and Systems), EE 451 (Digital Communication Systems), EE 464 (Digital Signal Processing) and EE 489 (Introduction to Control Systems), are discussed in the systems area report submitted by Prof. Sivakumar Krishnamoorthy in Appendix E. Again, the main recommendations are summarized next.

2008.4Concern: Inadequate Matlab programming skillsCC Recommendation: CC encourages system faculty to explore the effectiveness of EE221 which has been specifically introduced into the EE curriculum for addressing this concern.

http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~schneidj/Assessment/ee.html

2008.5Concern: Offering of EE441CC Recommendation: CC recommends system faculty to either offer the course in the near future or to drop the course from the catalog.

In the area of electrophysics, the individual course reports and the summary can be seen athttp://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~schneidj/Assessment/ee.htmlThere was no summary report submitted for the electrophysics group.

The assessment material related to the microelectronics area can be seen in Appendix F. The assessment reports for the courses EE311 (Electronics), EE476 (Analog Integrated Circuits) and EE477 (Analog Integrated Circuits Laboratory) are available athttp://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~schneidj/Assessment/ee.htmlThe main recommendations are highlighted below.

2008.6Concern: Coordination of EE311 and EE352.CC Recommendation: CC recommends the microelectronics area faculty to discuss the coordination of topics in the two required core courses EE311 and EE352. This will be pursued as part of the curriculum revision planned for next academic year.

In the power systems area, the only available reports are from the power area course EE361 (Electrical Power Systems). Two instructors did not submit assessment reports. Prof. Tomsovic has since left WSU while Prof. Donolo was an adjunct faculty. The following list summarizes the main concern of the power area faculty.

2008.7Concern: Phasor skills for students entering EE361CC Recommendation: Power area faculty are encouraged to work with instructors of the pre-requisite classes EE261 and EE331 to include a better coverage of phasor problems in those classes.

2008.8Concern: Writing in the Major (M course) requirements for EE362.CC Recommendation: CC has changed the writing in the major requirement class to EE352 from EE362 effective Fall 2008.

Focus group reports used in the previous year assessment process have been replaced by a new assessment tool, Senior Curricular Debrief Session Report, starting this academic year. The Senior Curricular Debrief Session report, administered and prepared by CTLT, serves as a primary metric for the BSEE Program outcomes F, G, H, I and J. This report is presented in Appendix G. The main concerns from the debrief session report are stated below.

2008.9Concern: Coverage of ethics in EE curriculum.CC Recommendation: Students note that they cannot recall which EE courses involved discussion of engineering ethics. CC will monitor the coverage of ethics related topics in EE courses as part of the curriculum revision planned for next year.

2008. 10Concern: Exposure of curriclular debrief to general EE faculty.CC Recommendation: CC will share the results of curricular debrief report with all EE faculty and encourage similar assessment tools in other EE courses. EE 415 and EE 416 senior design courses have already started in this direction.

Presentation slides from EE curriculum presentation to the Industry Advisory Board meeting held in October 2007 are presented in Appendix H.

2008. 11Concern: Project management skills for BSEE graduates: IAB

encouraged EE curriculum committee to explore better exposure to engineering project management skills in the BSEE curriculum.

CC Recommendation: The possibility of including additional electives focused on project management skills will be discussed in the curriculum revision exercise planned for next year.

A compilation of assessment activities by CC in evaluating each of the A through K program outcomes is presented next. The recommendations by CC related to each of these outcomes is summarized below. Most of these recommendations are related to one or more of the concerns (2008.1) to (2008.11) as noted below, and they are repeated below for the sake of completeness.

Outcome A: Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.

1) Power area faculty has approved removing the topic of three phase circuits from EE 261 and EE 262 for a better emphasis on phasor calculations.

2) CC will recommend the microelectronics area faculty to discuss any need for revision of course topics in EE 311.

3) CC will work with the Dean’s office on possibly strengthening the mathematical skills learned by our students in the basic mathematics classes.

4) CC will monitor the student preparation with respect to Matlab in EE 300-level core courses for the new batch of students who are going through the introductory Matlab programming course EE 221.

Outcome B: Ability to design and conduct experiments as well as analyze and interpret data.

1. CC will recommend a broad coordination of design topics in EE curriculum as part of the curriculum revision planned for next year.

2. CC will request the system area faculty to monitor any improvement in the data analysis skills of students after completing the new required EE course EE 221 Fundamental of Numerical Computing.

Outcome C: Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

1. Faculty recommendations summarized above indicate concerns from faculty on the coordination of design topics in EE curriculum, even though the outcome measures do not clearly indicate any weakness in this area for the EE students. There were also comments by members of Industry Advisory Board (IAB) on the extent of coverage of design topics in BSEE degree program. Accordingly, CC will monitor the coverage of design topics in the revised EE curriculum to be developed next year.

Outcome D: Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.

1. Presently, our EE senior design teams contain only EE students and computer engineering students. EECS is moving toward more interdisciplinary teams within EECS. Soon the computer science students will participate in a required two sequence senior design program similar to the EE415/416 sequence presently required for all EE and computer engineering students. In addition, EECS students will be able to “crossover” and participate in either the EE senior design projects or the computer science senior design projects. In addition to this, the Dean of Engineering has endorsed a scheme by which seniors within any engineering school or department can “intermingle” and join each other’s design projects. This use of broader spectrum interdisciplinary teams is encouraged by CC; however, all ABET outcomes must continue to be assessed properly.

2. To strengthen our students’ experience in the teaming environment, teaming skills should be introduced early in the curriculum and reinforced at each level throughout the EECS curriculum. Teaming skills include effective communication with spoken and written English. EECS should measure student proficiency with spoken and written English, especially when English is the student’s second language. In some cases an accent reduction class or equivalent should be required of some students before they enter the EE415/416 sequence. CC should ask one of the design instructors, Scott Campbell, to make a DVD presentation that can be shown to EE415/416 classes. The focus would be on teaming skills, team dynamics, and efficient techniques for engineering teams. The material would be a mix of textbook theory and personal observations from teaching EE415/416. A team of former students could be invited to participate. By having the information on DVD the burden for presenting the material every semester would be lessened. Industry Advisory Board members should also be surveyed regarding

successful seminar series that are used to train their employees on modern engineering teaming skills.

2008.12Concern: Interdisciplinary engineering design courses.CC Recommendation: CC will work with the Dean’s office in the development of interdepartmental engineering design classes as well as Computer Science design classes as alternates to the EE design courses.

Outcome E: Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

1. CC will recommend the electro physics area faculty to discuss the syllabi for EE 331 and EE 351 towards better coordination.

2. CC will recommend system area faculty to consider introduction of contemporary industrial design concepts into EE 489, which will also address concerns on Outcome J on knowledge of contemporary issues.

Outcome F: Possess an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

1. CC will work with instructors of EE 415 and EE 416 to incorporate discussions of ethics more explicitly into EE415 and 416. CC will identify other EE courses where discussion of ethics can be incorporated more explicitly.

2. In senior design classes, there should be more explicit discussion of standards and their relevance in engineering practice. CC will identify other EE courses where explicit discussion of standards and their relevance in engineering practice can be introduced.

Outcome G: Ability to communicate effectively in written and oral formats.

1. CC will coordinate with instructors of EE352 on the assessment of writing skills in that course.

2. CC will explore the option of introducing oral communication components such as seminars in any EE course other than EE 415 and EE 416.

2008.12Concern: Oral communication components in EE curriculumCC Recommendation: CC will monitor the coverage of oral communication components in EE curriculum (CC monitoring needed).

Outcome H: A broad education to understand the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, and societal context.

1. CC will recommend the instructors of EE 415 and EE 416 to work with CTLT to improve the assessment of Outcome H in the courses. Compared to last year curricular debrief report, in the 2008 report, there is much better consistency of

evaluator scores between EE faculty evaluators and CTLT evaluators.

Outcome I: Recognize the need for, and have the ability to engage in life-long learning.

1. The course assessment report for EE 234 needs to clarify how Outcome I is being assessed in the course, and provide details on the assessment measures. Curriculum committee will work with instructor of EE 234 to require submission of course assessment report for every time the course is taught.

Outcome J: Have a broad education and knowledge of contemporary issues.

1. CC will work with instructors of EE 415 and EE 416 as well as a few specific EE technical elective courses to improve the coverage of contemporary issues in EE curriculum. CC will recommend the instructors of EE 415 and EE 416 to work with CTLT to improve the assessment of Outcome J in the courses. Work is already in progress in this report as discussed in Appendix D.

Outcome K: Ability to use techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices.

1. Some assessment reports lack details on how the course metrics are related to the outcome being assessed. CC should hold training sessions so that faculty and instructors will write assessment reports that more clearly assess Outcome K.

Appendix AEECS reply to ABET EAC Draft Statement

EAC Draft Statement, Concern: Criterion 1 requires that the institution advise students regarding curricular and career matters. Freshman and sophomores receive some advising from the academic coordinator in the department, but are not assigned a faculty advisor. Some of these students would benefit from faculty guidance, especially as the students are trying to make a choice among the three programs offered by the department: computer engineering, electrical engineering, and computer science. At the time of the visit newly adopted processes were in place that appear to be adequate to meet this criterion for upper division students who have declared their major. All students must receive curricular advising from the academic coordinator once each semester whether they are lower division or not. Students are also advised by faculty advisors just prior to declaring their major towards the end of the sophomore year, and again before picking their senior electives and senior design course towards the end of their junior year.

EECS Reply: As described in section B.1.2 of the Self-Study, our program has a long-standing emphasis on faculty-student interactions. To help ensure that this continues to be the case, we have, as noted in this Concern, instituted a new formal faculty advisor program to ensure undergraduate students engage in broad professional discussions with the faculty. This program requires students, beginning as freshmen, meet with a faculty mentor at least four times: 1) at the beginning of the degree program; 2) after one year; 3) at certification; and 4) before beginning technical electives and option courses. Transfer students will see a mentor starting at whatever point they enter the department. Faculty mentors will notify academic advisors when meetings with mentors have taken place. Finally, students will give feedback regarding the quality of mentoring they have received and that information will be compiled and forwarded to the Director. This feedback will be considered in the annual reviews of the faculty.

EAC Draft Statement, Observation: The School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science has an opportunity to improve the retention of its undergraduate students by rethinking the learning environment of its lower division courses, e.g., CS 121. Promising steps have been taken to deal with the preparation for such student by identify in students with inadequate preparation and providing a feeder course CS 111. Furthermore, the EE 214 course is an excellent example of the value of having an instructor dedicated to getting students new to the field excited about the subject.

EECS Reply: Retention is given serious attention in all the programs within the School. As noted in the Observation, CptS 111 (Introduction to Algorithmic Problem Solving), was recently created to assist students who might otherwise be ill-prepared for the demands of CptS 121 (Program Design and Development). The faculty continue to refine CptS 111 and this course falls directly under the research interests of Prof. Christopher Hundhausen (who has a grant to study different pedagogy in the

computer science curriculum). However, the curriculum has been revised since the time of the visit so that electrical engineering students are no longer required to take CptS 121. Instead they take CptS 251 (C Programming Language which has be revamped specifically to meet the needs of electrical engineering students. We have also added EE 221 (Numerical Computing for Engineers) as a required course. This course, in addition to teaching students the underlying fundamental of various aspects of numerical computing, also provides a thorough introduction to program with Matlab (a programming tool that is used in courses throughout the curriculum). We continue to monitor and seek ways to improve other lower-division courses where retention is a concern, such as EE 120 (Innovation in Design), which is where students in various engineering programs, including electrical engineering, get their first exposure to electrical engineering.

Appendix BEE Mission Statement and

Assessment Plan

The School of EECS educational mission is as follows: (i) educating graduates for professional leadership, civic influence,

and lifelong learning and (ii) providing an education based on a theoretical, experimental, and

ethical foundation and enhanced by opportunities for participation in research, internships, international studies, interdisciplinary programs, or programs in entrepreneurship.

The mission statement for the undergraduate BSEE program is the same as that of the School of EECS.

Educational ObjectivesThe educational objectives of the Electrical Engineering program in the School of EECS are published on the Web. These are contained in our assessment plan and are available via the Undergraduate Studies link from our home page

http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/This link is readily available to all visitors to our website. The educational objectives for the BSEE program are to:

1. Prepare graduates for a career in the field of electrical engineering by offering a curriculum based on the principles of mathematics, science, fundamentals of engineering design and analysis, and professional ethics.Our graduates will have professional careers related to electrical engineering.

2. Prepare graduates to use state-of-the-art technologies and tools to solve problems relevant to societal and economic needs.Our graduates can adapt to changes in technology as well as to the needs of the society.

3. Prepare graduates to work and live in a global, diversified society, instilling the value of life-long learning.Our graduates will continue to seek knowledge to thrive in an increasingly globalized society.

4. Prepare graduates to meet the needs of industry for electrical engineering or to pursue graduate studies.Our graduates will have options to pursue careers in industry or academia.

5. Prepare graduates to communicate clearly and work effectively in teams.Our graduates can be team members or team leaders.

To ensure that the educational objectives 1 through 5 stated above are met, we have adopted the following program outcomes for the BSEE program, with qualifying remarks given below some outcomes.Students graduating with the BS degree in Electrical engineering have:

A. Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.

B. Ability to design and conduct experiments as well as analyze and interpret data.

C. Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/

D. Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.

[Multidisciplinary refers to fields that are diverse in scope and nature such as physics, mathematics, economics as well as other engineering disciplines.]

E. Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

F. An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

G. Ability to communicate effectively in written and oral formats.

H. A broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, and societal context.

[This can be considered primarily a general education requirement. However, there are economic and social implications of electrical engineering that are, or may be, discussed within EE courses themselves. For example, wireless and satellite technologies have the potential to offer services to developing countries that could not afford to first deploy “wired” services. Additionally, smart-card and electronic information technologies have the potential to affect huge changes in society.]

I. Recognize the need for, and have the ability to engage in life long learning.

[Electrical engineering is a constantly changing discipline that, for its practitioners, clearly requires “lifelong learning.” For instance, the literature survey that is required at the beginning of the senior design projects is an example where the student has to engage in library activities to discover material not directly covered in the BSEE curriculum.]

J. Have a broad education and knowledge of contemporary issues.

[Contemporary issues are those pertinent to electrical engineers entering or in the workforce today. Examples of contemporary issues include such things as the impact of deregulation on the power industry, and the infrastructure problems related to the creation of a “wireless society”. ]

K. Ability to use techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices.

BSEE Assessment PlanAn assessment plan has been developed and put in place to ensure that graduates have achieved the

educational objectives and the program outcomes of the BSEE degree program.

Our assessment process has four distinct but related purposes:

1. Assessing the achievement of program educational objectives.2. Assessing the achievement of program outcomes.3. Aligning our program objectives and outcomes with the changing needs of our constituencies.4. Improving EECS programs.

Four sub-processes, one for each of these purposes, constitute the assessment process used for each of

the EECS programs. Some inputs are shared between the sub-processes, but the sub-processes have

different time scales reflecting the practicalities of acquiring different inputs and the inertia of the educational

processes that are being monitored and improved. The School's assessment committee, comprising the

Director and the three curriculum committee chairs, monitors the assessment process itself.

Sub-process 1. Assessing the achievement of program educational objectives

Objectives Flowchart

Overview: Achievement of program objectives is measured as described above using alumni surveys and

through interactions with the IAB and industrial recruiters. The Electrical engineering curriculum committee

and the School’s assessment committee use these inputs in advising the faculty regarding changes to the

curriculum to address identified problem areas. The School’s assessment committee (the Director and the

chairs of the curriculum committees for all the programs) consider these inputs as well as changes in

University and ABET requirements to formulate proposed changes to the objectives.

Time Scale: Alumni surveys are conducted every three years. IAB and recruiter interactions occur twice a

year. The curriculum committee incorporates assessment of program objectives in its annual report in years

in which alumni surveys are conducted.

Required Documentation: Alumni survey results; IAB and recruiter notes.

Responsibilities:

Development officer and Corporate Relations Officer– identify alumni and request survey participation

School director – plan and conduct IAB meetings Faculty – meet with recruiters Electrical Engineering curriculum committee – evaluate data and report recommendations

concerning the objectives in the annual report School assessment committee – recommend changes to the objectives to meet changing needs of

the constituents and changing external requirements The objectives and outcomes of the program and the curriculum by which they are achieved are

the responsibility of the Electrical engineering faculty as a body; changes are adopted by vote of the faculty.

Sub-process 2. Assessing the achievement of program outcomes

Outcomes Flowchart

Overview: For each program, the School maintains a program of study with program outcomes mapped to

courses. Course designs require students to demonstrate, through work products such as homework,

examinations, lab exercises, projects, written and oral presentations, their achievement level on the mapped

outcomes. As a direct measure of achievement of outcomes, courses are designed to ensure that

successful completion requires achievement of program outcomes. Each instructor certifies that a grade of

C or better represents achievement of minimum requirements. The school retains documentation in the form

of the instructor’s certification and examples of student work as evidence that the certification is justified.

The university-wide degree audit reporting system ensures that every graduating student meets the degree

program requirements which include the condition that students achieve a grade of C or better in all courses

in the major.

The assessment process collects documentation of the achievement of outcomes from each course as

students progress through the program. The Course Assessment Report documents each instructor’s

assessment of outcomes for each course instance. A template for the report, listing expected program

outcomes and course topics, is maintained by the coordinator for each course. End-state assessments are

conducted through consideration of students’ performance in senior-level courses, through exit-surveys and

senior Curricular Debriefs, through alumni surveys and discussions with the IAB. The Curriculum Committee

uses these inputs to formulate its annual assessment report which recommends curriculum and course

changes to the faculty based on the results of assessment.

Time scale: this sub-process runs continuously.

Required documentation: For each course instance, a Course Assessment Report document that shows

how the work products (hw, tests, etc.) relate to achievement of the program outcomes, signed by the

instructor; for each course instance syllabus, sample student work, assignments, examinations, etc.; student

course evaluations; student transcripts and degree audits; senior exit surveys and interviews, Curricular

Debrief reports. Alumni surveys also enter into this process.

Responsibilities:

Electrical Engineering curriculum committee maintains the program of study and mapping of program outcomes to required courses, subject to approval or modification by the program's faculty (see the program improvement sub-process.)

Course instructors devise and assess assignments and examinations in which students demonstrate their achievement of the required outcomes. Instructors produce a Course Assessment Report for each semester that a course is taught. It details how that instance of the course assessed the expected outcomes and asked the instructor to comment on students’ preparation for the course.

The School maintains course instance documentation and Course Assessment Reports in a central location.

Until Spring 2004, graduating seniors were interviewed by a senior faculty member, but this activity has been supplanted by Curricular Debriefs (described previously) and senior surveys.

The University Registrar maintains transcripts and provides degree audits that ensure that every student meets all the requirements of the program as a condition of graduation. Students can review their degree audit on-line at any time. The School's Undergraduate Advisor assists students in registering for required classes and meeting other graduation requirements.

The School does not have direct access to initial career placement data for all the students. The senior survey collects this information but many students do not have jobs by the time they take the survey. The alumni survey queries students as to their career progress.

The Electrical Engineering curriculum committee reviews the collected data and reports identified issues and suggested changes to the faculty for action. It also creates an annual program assessment report for the faculty and the Associate Dean.

The school assessment committee reviews suggested changes to the outcomes, courses, and curricula for consistency across the programs offered by the school.

As noted for sub-process 1, the objectives and outcomes of the program and the curriculum by which they are achieved are the responsibility of the Electrical Engineering faculty as a body; changes are adopted by vote of the faculty.

Sub-process 3. Aligning with constituencies' needs.

Aligning Flowchart

Overview: Our process for aligning our programs’ objectives and outcomes with industrial constituencies’

needs involves three main sources of input: our Industrial Advisory Board, alumni surveys, and surveys and

interviews of graduating students. Additional constituency input comes in the form of the institutional mission

of WSU, which reflects the interests of Washington's citizens, and the ABET accreditation criteria. The

faculty desires good personal and institutional reputations. Faculty members take pride in producing

qualified graduates. Faculty input comes from faculty meetings and retreats, daily e-mail, oral, and written

communications. Input from these sources is synthesized into the objectives and outcomes for each

program in the School.

Time scales: We fully review program objectives and outcomes with the IAB at least every three years,

though IAB input on specific issues may also be solicited annually. Alumni surveys are conducted every

three years. Surveys of all graduating students are carried out each semester and a subset of graduating

students participate each year in a curricular debrief that elicits their opinions of the program (in addition to

the formally assessed component addressed above). Faculty review is continual through faculty and

curriculum committee meetings as well as other forms of communication. We expect that objectives and

outcomes will be quite stable over periods longer than three years. However, we are prepared to make

changes in response to identified issues on an annual basis if needed.

Documentation: results of surveys and interviews; agendas and minutes of IAB meetings; agendas and

minutes of faculty meetings; published objectives and outcomes; minutes of curriculum committee meetings.

Responsibilities:

The Electrical Engineering curriculum committee maintains surveys administered to graduating seniors and alumni. The survey questions attempt to elicit individuals' perspective on both the importance to their current work of various aspects of the curriculum and the preparation that they received in that aspect.

The School's Undergraduate Advisor conducts the survey of graduating students. The School's Development Officer and Industry Relations Officer identify alumni 2, 5 and 10 years

past their graduation and solicit their participation in the alumni survey, which is administered every three years.

The Director plans the IAB review of objectives and outcomes with the help of the curriculum committees.

EE curriculum committee reviews all the collected data to determine if any changes to the program objectives and outcomes are indicated. Changes are recommended to the School Director who will present the proposed changes to the faculty for deliberation and approval

Sub-process 4. Improving the ProgramsOverview: Improving the programs is the major reason behind the existence of the other two sub-processes.

In the figures above, program improvement is indicated by the closed feedback loops from assessment data

collection to changes in the curriculum, outcomes, and objectives. The School's programs are expected to

lead students to achievement and attainment of the program outcomes. To this end, the curriculum

committee for each program maintains a program of study and a mapping of outcomes to specific courses

within that program. The program improvement sub-process will, over time, lead to increases in both the

average levels achieved by our students and the percentage of students reaching the minimum achievement

level. The program improvement sub-process uses inputs from a variety of sources: the course

documentation collected by the School for each course (Course Assessment Reports) including student

work; student course evaluations; instructors' reflections on the level of preparation of students entering their

classes and their achievement on leaving classes; retention rates from semester to semester; placement of

graduates; alumni surveys; IAB input; and the annual curricular debriefs described above.

Time scale: The program improvement process at this level is the continuing responsibility of the curriculum

committees, consuming most of their attention at several meetings each year. Many of the inputs are

available each semester and aspects may be reviewed at any time. However, changes to the program of

study are recommended to the faculty once a year. Adoption by the faculty is followed by publication of

changes in the University catalog. The changes become requirements for students subsequently certifying in

the major.

Documentation: published mapping of outcomes to courses; curriculum committee and faculty meeting

minutes; the annual assessment report.

Responsibilities:

The EE curriculum committee (CC) establishes and maintains, subject to advice and concurrence by the faculty, the program of study and mapping of program outcomes to courses. The CC also reviews the inputs for problems or opportunities throughout the year.

The EE curriculum committee evaluates progress toward achievement of the program objectives and outcomes and reports to the faculty on what has been achieved.

The EE CC annually reviews new and previously identified issues. For new issues a recommended plan of action is brought to the faculty. For previously identified issues the results of actions taken are assessed and the plan updated or the issue closed.

The faculty acts on the CC’s recommendations or on its own initiative. The Undergraduate Advisor maintains the School's files of course materials, survey results, and

other raw data inputs for the improvement process.

Appendix CEE Curriculum Flowchart

Appendix DEE Senior Design

Assessment Reports

DATE: 11/7/2008TO: Krishnamoorthy Sivakumar, Chair of EE Curriculum CommitteeFROM: Patrick Pedrow, Chair of EE Senior Design Area CommitteeCC: Scott Campbell, Member of EE Senior Design Area Committee, Mani Venkatasubramanian, John SchneiderRE: Annual Report for 2007/2008 Academic YearThis committee interacted via emails in October and November 2008 to assemble and discuss the assessmentreports for Fall 2007/Spring 2008 offerings of EE415 and EE416. This memo describes the committee’s observationsregarding each salient point:Item 1:Development of teaming skills should remain a priority for EE415 but also for the entire EECS schedule of studies.Item 2:It continues to be important for EECS to allow enrollment into EE415 by only qualified students. Immature studentsweaken teams and degrade project quality. The EE415/416 sequence should be a “just in time for graduation”experience so that the skill set of teams is as strong as possible.Item 3:Similar to fall 2006, in fall 2007 there was an entire team that received course grades less than C and that team mustrepeat EE415. Such events leave a poor impression with sponsoring companies and mentors. The Center for Advisingand Learning (CTLT) will assist EE415 instructors in partitioning students onto teams. Allowing volunteer studentrecruiters to “hire” the team without professional mentoring might yield a weak team containing only students perceivedas “less than efficient” by their colleagues.Item 4:Thanks in part to Casey Hanson’s efforts; one design team sponsor (Ergami, LLC) funded the team (Kodiak) with$5,000 to facilitate their EE416 design work. This infusion or money was very beneficial to the design team but futureteams will benefit from any “residual” funds not used by this team.Item 5:Academic Media Services (AMS) will be asked to capture team seminars to streaming video so that students can placetheir seminar presentation into their Eportfolio. CTLT is helping EECS with these arrangements.Item 6:It is essential that EECS senior design instructors continue to interact with Dr. Ashley Ater-Kranov, Assistant Directorof CTLT, in an effort to develop and evaluate our students’ professional skills. EECS should introduce professionalskills earlier in the schedule of studies. Dr. Ater-Kranov is very active in EE415 fall semester 2008.Item 7:The “yellow slip” policy described in the spring 2007 assessment report was included this semester and it wassuccessful in the sense that it inspired one team to meet with the instructor and discuss in a very frank way the marginalteaming skill of one of their team members. The yellow slip policy allows a team to request a substantial points

deduction from a team member that displays unprofessional behavior. After discussing the situation more carefully thisparticular team decided not to issue the yellow slip but the discussions it prompted were very valuable for instructor andstudents alike.Item 8:The broader impacts essay is useful in the sense that it has kept CTLT active in assisting the instructor to assess theprofessional skills parts of the ABET outcomes. CTLT is still analyzing the broader impact essays and EECS plans tomake that essay an integral part of future written proposals.Item 9:A trial run has been made to infuse more aggressive design work into EE415. As that set of students completes EE416in fall 2008, the effectiveness of that effort will be evaluated.Item 10:Some design project sponsors feel that our EE majors are at a severe disadvantage with their minimal programmingskills. An alternate way to improve design team performance on programming skills would be to have more computerengineering majors spread throughout the teams. Teams finishing EE416 in December have too few computer engineers.

Washington State UniversitySchool of EECS

Electrical Engineering Course Assessment Report

Course Number EE 415 Course Title Design Project Management Semester Offered Fall 2007Instructor P. Pedrow10th Day Enrollment 31 Number Completing Successfully (C grade or better) 27

I. Assessment Outcomes from the Course Syllabus

(A) Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.

(G) Ability to communicate effectively in written and oral formats.

(B) Ability to design and conduct experiments as well as analyze and interpret data.

(H) A broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, and societal context.

(C) Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.

(I) Recognize the need for, and have the ability to engage in life long learning.

(D) Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.

(J) Have a broad education and knowledge of contemporary issues.

(E) Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.

(K) Ability to use techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices.

(F) An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

II. List of Course Topics from the Course Syllabus1. Introduction to Total Quality management 2. Guest speaker on understanding your customer 3. Assignment of teams and projects 4. Guest speaker on successful entrepreneurship 5. Team building exercise 6. Product design specifications 7. Concept selection 8. Engineering economics 9. Guest speaker on project scheduling 10. Guest speaker on codes and standards 11. Guest speaker on business plan development 12. Guest speaker on intellectual property issues 13. Guest speaker on engineering presentations

14. Group project proposal presentations to instructor and faculty/industry mentors

Additional Graded Student Activity:

15. Laboratory Notebook16. Homework and In-class Activities 17. Peer and Mentor Evaluations18. Written Proposal19. Exam on Technical Writing20. Exam on Design Algorithm

III. Course Assessment Summary Table: one row of the table should be devoted to each of the checked outcomes in part I.

Outcome Topics Specific Measures(A) Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.

14, 18 Scores on Proposal Section Entitled “Introduction”

Scores on Each Student’s Appendix


15, 18 Lab Book Scores


14, 16, 18, 20 Points lost on the Following Sections in Written Proposal: Customer Preferences, Target Technical Specifications, Engineering Design Synthesis, Concept Selection, Final Technical Specifications

Team and Student Seminar Scores Individual Student Exam Score


2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 17

Peer & Mentor Evaluation (Individual Score)


6, 7, 14, 18 Student Course Grades


1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18

Mentors Are Practicing Professionals

Peer & Mentor Evaluation (Individual Scores)


13, 14, 15, 18, 19

Written Proposal Scores Individual Student Proposal

Appendix Score Team Seminar Score Individual Student Seminar Score Individual Student Exam Score


14, 18 Inherent Nature of the Design Projects


18 Cited Refereed Journals


14, 18 Inherent Nature of the Design Projects


9, 16, 18 Tools Listed in the “Engineering Analysis, Modeling and Simulation” Section of the Team Written Proposal

IV. Using the table as a guide, for each outcome summarize your evaluation of the students’ achievement of that outcome; cite student performance on the identified measures as evidence to support your conclusions.

(A) Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.

For archiving and reporting purposes, the instructor gave each team an icon name from a list of “islands”. This report will use the icon names for brevity. Table A.1 gives a summary of some team characteristics for Fall 2007 EE415.

Each of the seven design teams wrote a proposal. There were several locations in these proposals where students showed ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. For this report student performance in the Introduction section will be cited as evidence that they have ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. EE415 writing guidelines for the Introduction section say,

“Here are five objectives for the introduction: a) by way of a literature review it shows the reader that the team has accumulated a reading knowledge of the topics covered by your design project, b) it allows the reader to strengthen their background in these topics by reading the introduction and by reading cited references, c) it shows the reader that you will not duplicate other’s work since your work will go beyond what is

described in the introduction, d) it cites high quality references as epitomized by refereed engineering and science journal articles and e) at the end of the introduction in a final short paragraph it tells the reader how your document is organized and what the reader should look for in each of the major sections. Spend about 70% of the Introduction on engineering topics within the general discipline where your design project is located and only about 30% of the Introduction on your specific design project. Many of your readers have a technical background but not in the area related to your project. You must ‘bring them along’ with you and capture their interest. Assume that your reader is a ‘quick learner’ but that they do need some introductory material about the discipline involved and about your design challenge. Present an equivalent circuit whenever practical. Equivalent circuits of interest could be induction motor, autotransformer, solar cell, dc-ac inverter, charge controller, fuel cell, force transducer for a robot arm, stepper motor, oscillator, antenna, transmission line, etc. Digital systems are not well represented by equivalent circuits but for some projects background information is needed on items such as FPGA, VHDL, digital communication protocol, etc.”

Table A.2 lists teams and technical topics covered in the Introduction section of their proposal. The instructor reviewed the Introduction section of graded proposals and tabulated points lost to technical errors (see Table A.3.) Five teams lost 0 points, one team lost 6 points, and one team lost 12 points. Sumatra lost 3 points for failing to describe how pulse width modulation is used in booster and H-bridge circuits. They also lost 3 points for an inconsistent description of their electrical load. The rest of the Sumatra Introduction contained quality information and the overall section was considered passing. The Java team lost 3 points for failing to show an equivalent circuit for at least one gantry crane motor. They lost 3 points for failing to show the torque-speed curve for a typical gantry crane mechanical load. They lost another 3 points for not mentioning details about the station service circuit. Java lost 3 points for failing to clearly describe the number and type of cranes that were to be included in their design project. Twelve points lost to technical content was excessive and showed that the Java team possessed only superficial knowledge in topics related to their design project. All members of the Java team received course grades less than C and must repeat EE415. The Introduction in the written proposal shows that all teams not required to repeat EE415 demonstrated an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering; however it does not present evidence regarding individual student abilities. For that, the instructor invokes the fact that each student wrote an appendix in the proposal that described the project from their vantage point. These individual student scores are shown in Table A.4. Remarkably low scores (68, 48, 61, 45, and 71) appear for students # 19, 23, 25, 27, and 28, respectively. Students #23, 25, 27, and 28 received a course grade less than C and must repeat EE415. Student #19 lost only 3 points for technical content thus his low score was mostly unrelated to his ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. Thus the data shown in this section supports the contention that students passing EE415 Fall 2006 possessed sufficiently strong ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.

Table A.1. Summary of design teams for EE415 in fall semester 2007.

Team Name

Number of Students

Sponsor Project Title

Corsica 4 Grant County PUD "Voltage Support Procedure"Elba 4 Tacoma Power "Dynamic Line Ratings"Java 4 U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers"Gantry Crane Power Supply"

Kodiak 5 Ergami LLC "Wireless Radio Frequency Powered Lighting System for Furniture"

Mindanao 5 Cypress Semiconductor

"Temperature Compensated Digitally Controlled Crystal Oscillator"

Sumatra 4 InnovaTek "Development of a Compact Chip-based Controller for a Fuel Cell System Using Matlab/Simulink"

Timor 5 SEL "Ethernet-based Communications Network for Protective Relaying "

Table A.2. Primary technical topics covered in the Introduction section of Fall 2007 EE415 written proposals.

Team Name Primary Technical Topics Covered in Introduction Section of ProposalCorsica Power system voltage control equationsElba Thermal model of conductorsJava Gantry cranesKodiak Wireless systemsMindanao Crystal oscillatorsSumatra Fuel cell systemsTimor Digital data acquisition for power systems

Table A.3. Points lost to technical errors in Introduction section of graded proposals.

Team

Points Lost to

Technical Errors

Corsica 0Elba 0Java 12*Kodiak 0Mindanao 0Sumatra 6Timor 0

*All members of this team must repeat EE415.

Table A.4. Student scores for their individual appendix in the written proposal.

Student Number

Score on Appendix Written by This Student (100)

1 822 973 844 895 916 1007 978 779 9710 9311 9712 8713 9714 9115 9716 9117 10018 8119 6820 10021 7722 10023* 4824 8825* 6126 9427* 4528* 7129 8730 9331 100

*These students must repeat EE415.


Each student was required to keep a laboratory notebook for the duration of EE415. Lab book guidelines read:

“Each student must maintain a lab book. It is feasible that your lab book will support an invention disclosure and it will definitely document your time spent on the design project. Generation and protection of intellectual property are other important reasons to keep a detailed lab book. In EE415/416, a well-kept lab book will be a mix of handwritten comments and attached exhibits. Your lab book can also function as a journal where you record your thoughts about the project. It is logical for an instructor to assume that a weak lab book results from insufficient hours per week spent on the project. Some of your EE416 evaluations will be oral reviews supplemented with a review of your lab book. A weak performance on the oral review can be "salvaged" by a strong lab book. This is very important to the person for whom English is not their primary language. Lab books are not just for grading but they are also for your convenience when you need to retrieve data that was generated earlier and recorded in your lab book.”

On two different occasions, the EE415 teaching assistant inspected and graded each student’s lab book. The lab book grading rubric is shown in Table B.1 while lab book scores are shown in Table B.2. Scores were quite high showing that students were quick to develop strong lab book habits. Students #3 and 15 received the lowest grades (70%); however, there were for the first lab book inspections and they responded well by improving their lab book scores significantly for the second inspection. With the caveat that EE415 does not have a strong experimental component, the instructor concludes that these high lab book scores are evidence that the EE415 students finished the course with an acceptable ability to design and conduct experiments as well as analyze and interpret data.

Table B.1. Grading rubric applied to lab book scores.

Points Deducted (100 Points Available)Number of

Errors in the Category

Category I.Lab Book Setup and

Page Formatting

Category II.Volume of Lab Book Entries

(Written Sentences and

Attached Exhibits)

Category III.Legibility and

Coherence (Not Neatness) of Lab

Book Entries

Category IV.Attachment

Techniques for Exhibits and Quality

of Exhibits

1 -5 -10 -5 -52 -10 -20 -10 -103 -15 -20 -15 -154 -20 -20 -20 -205 -25 -20 -25 -25

6 -25 -20 -30 -25

Table B.2. Lab book scores for EE415.

Student Number

Lab Book Grade #1 (100)

Lab Book Grade #2 (100)

1 100 902 95 903 70 954 100 1005 95 956 100 1007 95 1008 100 959 95 10010 100 10011 100 9512 100 9013 95 10014 100 9015 70 8016 100 9517 90 9518 95 10019 95 9020 100 9021 100 9022 95 9023 80 8524 100 10025 100 10026 85 9527 85 9528 90 10029 95 10030 90 9031 80 85


In EE415 each team received a sponsoring company or institution and a mentor who was a practicing engineer or scientist with the sponsor. In EE415 students write proposals describing (in preliminary terms) the design concept to be pursued in E416. The complete design algorithm used in EE415/416 consists of the steps shown in Table C.1 (some steps are in iterative paths). In the EE415 written proposals, teams are expected to demonstrate a working understanding of Steps 1-7, thus they show an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. The preliminary design described in EE415 (Step 6) becomes much more detailed by the time students finish EE416 (Steps 8-12). Some EE415 teams make progress on Step 8; however, time contraints force most of the Step 8-12 activities into EE416.

Performance on the written proposal sections listed in Table C.2 are cited as evidence that these EE415 teams have a sufficiently strong ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. (An important caveat is that students develop detailed design skills only after they complete the follow-on course EE416.)

The grading rubric for the written proposal is shown in Table C.3. Points lost in Category VII Design Algorithm have been tabulated for the seven teams and are shown in Table C.4. Elba, Mindanao, and Timor each lost no “design points”. Corsica and Kodiak each lost 4 design points (as shown in Table C.3 one error yielded a 4 point deduction) and in both cases the error related to a lack of quantitative values for the target technical specifications. Sumatra committed two design errors resulting in the loss of 8 points due to misguided target technical specification and misguided final technical specifications. Java lost 12 design points due to 3 design errors related to concept generation, bench marking, and concept selection. The Java team must repeat EE415 and so will have another opportunity to master the design algorithm.

Previous comments in this section addressed team performance. Each individual student was required to show intimate familiarity with the design process by contributing at least 12 minutes to a seminar where the audience included the mentor, other professionals, and other WSU students. It is claimed that a cohesive seminar could be presented only if each team member was adequately familiar with the design process that has been followed to bring the team to this point in their project. Table C5 shows team grades for seminar performance while Table C6 shows individual student grades for seminar performance. The only low and bothersome scores are for team members that must repeat EE415.

For the first time this semester, a design algorithm exam was administered in EE415 and the results are shown in Table C.7. Scores ranged between 55% and 100%. The Java team which must repeat EE415 scored 40, 85, 70, and 70% on this design algorithm exam. The Sumatra team which lost 8 points in Table C.4 scored 85, 65, 60, and 60% on this design algorithm exam. The trend is that students on the two teams weakest on design concepts in their proposal scored quite low on the design algorithm exam. Student number 16 had the lowest exam score and was on the Kodiak team which lost 4 design points. The design exam was given early in the semester and sampled student knowledge at that time. Scores on the final proposals reflect several iterative learning experiences with the design algorithm.

The evidence presented in this section shows that EE415 students not forced to repeat EE415 have a sufficiently strong ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs. Tables C.4 and C.7 show that three member of the Sumatra team displayed marginal but acceptable design skills.

Table C.1. Abreviated list of steps included in the EE415/416 design algorithm. These are consistent with the course textbook.

Design Step Number

Design Step Description Course

1 Build the Team EE4152 Develop Communication Link with Customer EE4153 Establish Customer Preferences EE4154 Convert Customer Preferences to Target Technical Specifications EE4155 Engineering Design Synthesis (Concept Generation and Concept Selection) EE4156 Describe Preliminary Design EE4157 List Final Technical Specifications EE4158 Engineering Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation EE4169 Determine Behavior of Revised Design EE41610 Refinements EE41611 Prototyping EE41612 Describe Final Design EE416

Table C.2. Written proposal sections used to evaluate Outcome C.

Customer PreferencesTarget Technical SpecificationsConcept GenerationConcept SelectionFinal Technical Specifications

Table C.3. Grading rubric for team score on written proposal. This rubric was included in the assignment.

Points DeductedNumber of Errors in the Category

I. Page Setup and

“Boiler Plate” Items

II. Miscellaneous

III. Figures

and Tables

IV. References

V. Gantt Charts

VI. Accuracy

of Technical Content

VII. Design

Algorithm

Errors Associated with These

“Final Proposal” Guidelines

1 -2 -1 -2 -3 -3 -3 -4 -22 -4 -2 -4 -6 -6 -6 -8 -43 -6 -3 -6 -9 -9 -9 -12 -64 -8 -4 -8 -12 -12 -12 -12 -85 -10 -5 -10 -12 -12 -15 -12 -106 -10 -6 -12 -12 -12 -18 -12 -127 -10 -7 -12 -12 -12 -18 -12 -128 -10 -8 -12 -12 -12 -18 -12 -129 -10 -9 -12 -12 -12 -18 -12 -1210 -10 -10 -12 -12 -12 -18 -12 -1211 -10 -11 -12 -12 -12 -18 -12 -1212 -10 -12 -12 -12 -12 -18 -12 -12

Table C.4. Points lost in the written proposal team score to errors in Category VII Design Algorithm in sections entitled: Customer Preferences, Target Technical Specifications, Concept Generation, Concept Selection, and Final Technical Specifications

Team

Points Lost to Design

Algorithm Errors

Corsica 4Elba 0Java* 12*Kodiak 4Mindanao 0Sumatra 8Timor 0

*All members must repeat EE415.

Table C.5. Team seminar scores.

Team

Team Seminar

Score (100)Corsica 100Elba 100Java* 20*Kodiak 100Mindanao 90Sumatra 100Timor 100

*All Java team members must repeat EE415.

Table C.6. Student seminar scores.

Student Number

Seminar Score (100)

1 100

2 100

3 100

4 100

5 100

6 100

7 100

8 100

9 100

10 100

11 100

12 100

13 100

14 100

15 100

16 100

17 100

18 100

19 100

20 100

21 100

22 100

23* 75

24 100

25* 50

26 100

27* 65

28* 85

29 100

30 90

31 100*These students were on the Java team and all must repeat EE415.

Table C.7. Student scores for design algorithm exam.

Student Number

Seminar Score (100)

1 85 (Sumatra)2 1003 804 805 65 (Sumatra)6 857 708 60 (Sumatra)9 7510 8511 9512 7013 8514 6515 60 (Sumatra)16 5517 9518 8019 7020 9021 10022 8023* 4024 7525* 8526 6027* 7028* 7029 7030 8031 95

*These students were on the Java team and all must repeat EE415.


Each student in Fall 2007 EE415 was assigned to a project team with size 4 or 5 students. These teams included students with diverse interests (e.g. software, hardware, electrophysics, computer engineering, analog electronics, etc.) From the standpoint of majors, the team members were a mix of electrical engineering majors and computer engineering majors. To evaluate a student's effectiveness in the team environment, at the end of the semester each student and each mentor was asked to prepare an evaluation of the student members of the team. Each evaluator (student or mentor) assigned a grade to each student on the team. Grades solicited from students and mentors were based on the following criteria: A. Student work demonstrates consistently excellent scholastic performance; thorough comprehension; ability to correlate the material with other ideas, to communicate and to deal effectively with course concepts and new material; reliability in attendance and attention to assignments. B. Student work demonstrates superior scholastic performance overall, reliability in attendance, and attention to assignments; may demonstrate excellence but be less consistent than the work of an A student. C. Student work demonstrates satisfactory performance overall, as well as reliability in attendance, and attention to assignments. D. Student work demonstrates minimal, barely passing performance overall; limited knowledge of subject matter. F. Student work demonstrates unsatisfactory performance and comprehension or unfulfilled requirements. The grade is failing.

These letter grades were converted to scores based on the scale: A=100%, A-=95%, B+=90%, B=85%, B-=80%, C+=77%, C=75%, C-=70%, D+=67%, D=65%, D-=60%, and F=0. These peer and mentor scores are summarized in the histogram shown in Figure D.1.

Peer/Mentor Grades

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure D.1. Histogram of peer and mentor scores.

These are very high scores (minimum is 88 %) showing that all of these students possessed an acceptable ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.

Not only were the teams composed of students with multidisciplinary interests but the array of topics covered by the projects was multidisciplinary. The Corsica team worked on electric power Voltage control techniques. The Elba team worked on heat conduction models as they relate to dynamic power line current ratings. the Java team worked on providing power to hydroelectric dam gantry cranes. The Kodiak team worked on wireless power supplies for furniture lighting systems. The Mindanao team worked on a temperature compensated digitally controlled crystal oscillator. The Sumatra team worked on Matlab/Simulink modeling of the componenets in a fuel cell-based electric power supply. The Timor team worked on an ethernet-based communications network for protection of electric power systems.

Mentor and co-mentor specialties also cut across many disciplines and included electronics engineers, electric power engineers, computer engineers, a computer scientist, an interior designer, a physicist, a biologist, a mechanical engineer, and a chemical engineer. Data and facts presented in this section support the assertion that these Fall 2007 EE415 students have sufficiently strong abilities to function on multidisciplinary teams.


Each team was required to complete the initial steps on an engineering design project that was completely "open ended". An industry professional acted as mentor and there were several other professionals available as resource persons for the teams (the instructor and a faculty resource person for each team.) As part of the design project, each team was required to participate in writing a proposal and presenting a seminar, both of which described the initial work on their design and described work to be completed in EE416. Professionals (practicing engineers and scientists) attended the seminar and read the proposals. The overall student grades for Fall 2007 EE415 ranged from A to D. All members of one team received grades below a C and were required to repeat EE415. Neglecting the four students required to repeat EE415, the course grades ranged from A to B, showing that all students successfully completing EE415 were able to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.


Two seminars related to professional and ethical responsibility were presented to these students: 1) “Engineering Ethics” by Ghery Pettit from Intel and 2) “Intellectual Property” by Sherry Gordon from the WSU Attorney General Office. Students in EE415 demonstrate their understanding of professional and ethical responsibility as they interact with peers on their team and as they interact with the team mentor. The instructor assumes that students displaying errant professional and ethical behavior will receive low peer/mentor grades. Table F.1 lists the mentors for the Fall 2007 EE415 teams. Mentors interacted with team members in the following venues: 1) face-to-face team meetings, 2) conference calls, 3) email exchanges, 4) telephone calls, 5) review of drafts of the written

proposal, and 6) attendance at the team seminar. Table F.2 shows composite peer/mentor scores for students enrolled in EE415 fall 2007. From the scores listed in Table F.2 only two were below 90%. These “low” scores are for students #26 and 29. Table F.3 shows a summary of negative comments cited by team mates for students receiving a peer/mentor score less than 90%. Apathy and lack of communication skills are the salient complaints appearing in Table F.3. The lowest grade given by a mentor to a student was “B-” with negative comments related to missing document deadlines and failure to fully utilize the professional expertise of the co-mentor. The absence of low scores given by mentors suggests that the mentors identified no major student breaches of professional or ethical responsibility. These evaluations by peers and mentors support the instructor’s conclusion that students passing EE415 Fall 2007 understood their professional and ethical responsibilities.

Table F.1. Mentors for EE415 during Fall semester 2006.Team Name Mentor Corsica Rodney Noteboom, PE

Electric Power EngineerGrant County PUDEphrata, WA 98823

Elba Amy GriceElectric Power EngineerProtection & Controls EngineeringT&D EngineeringTacoma PowerTacoma, WA 98409-3192

Java Mathew WaldenElectric Power EngineerChief of Operations & MaintenanceAlbeni Falls DamUS Army Corps of EngineersNewport, WA 99156-0310

Kodiak Joe FeliceInterior DesignerErgami, LLCSpokane Valley, WA 99206

Mindanao Greg BarnesElectronics EngineerDesign Engineering Department Manager Cypress Semiconductor Moscow, ID 83843

Sumatra Quentin Ming, PhDChemical EngineerDirector of Sustainable PowerInnovaTek, IncRichland, WA 99354

Timor Greg ZweigleElectrical EngineerSchweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.Pullman, WA 99163

Table F.2. Peer/mentor composite grades for students enrolled in EE415 fall 2006.

Student Number

Composite Peer/Mentor Grade

(100)1 932 1003 954 955 1006 1007 1008 1009 9710 10011 9612 9313 9514 9615 10016 9617 10018 9019 9420 10021 9622 10023 9524 9325 9526 8927 10028 9529 8830 10031 100

Table F.3. Comments cited by team mates when peer/mentor score was less than 90%.

Student Number Negative Issues Cited by Team Mates26 “Terrible communicator. Writing had to be redone from scratch.”

“Had a lot of trouble communicating. It was difficult to explain what was expected for him and it was difficult to integrate his parts of the report.”

29 “Needs explicit motivation to complete tasks. Needs to work on scheduling. Often forgot about meetings and due dates.”“Didn’t always put forth effort and/or enthusiasm during team meetings and work sessions.”


The instructor arranged several seminar/workshop sessions to enhance students’ written and oral presentation skills. Students had numerous occasions at which they demonstrated these skills. There was an exam on technical writing guidelines.

The written proposal was built sequentially from two drafts that lead to the final proposal. The use of technical writing guidelines (provided by the instructor) was emphasized. Students were also encouraged to refer to their textbook (or handout notes) from their technical writing course, Engl 402 or Engl 403. Draft #1 of the proposal was critiqued by tutors provided by the WSU Writing Center. During an 80 minute workshop, one tutor per team evaluated the draft document and provided feedback to the team. Grading for Draft #1 was “bimodal” in the sense that full credit was given to any team bringing their Draft #1 to the workshop (zero credit was reserved for teams opting to not participate; however, all teams participated.) The writing tutors requested that they not be viewed as “grading” the documents since they wanted free flow of ideas between the teams and the tutors. Historically, this is a very popular workshop for the EE415 students. Draft #2 and then the final version of the proposal were graded by the instructor with help from the teaching assistant (mentor comments were also solicited). The grading rubric used by the instructor to grade the final written proposal is shown in Table C.3 on page 11. Four (I, II, III, and IV) of the seven grading categories were affiliated with writing proficiency.

For oral presentation techniques the EE415 students attended a seminar entitled “Giving Effective Engineering Presentations” by Mr. Randy Rhodes, an electrical engineer with PacifiCorp located in Portland, Oregon. The seminar by Mr. Rhodes was very effective at demonstrating effective presentation techniques for engineers.

Team scores for the final written proposal (excluding the team required to repeat EE415) were 96, 93, 89, 85, 69, and 52 %. The scores 69 and 52 % are quite low and require additional comments.

The team receiving 69 % on the final written proposal lost 13 points on writing techniques yielding an effective team writing skills score of 87% (the other 18 points were lost on technical content, on the design algorithm, and on failure to follow guidelines.) Each student on this team wrote a personal appendix and grades for those were 91, 88, 87, 81, and 77 %. These observations show that these five students possessed acceptable writing skills.

The team receiving 52 % on the final written proposal lost 18 points on writing techniques yielding an effective team writing skills score of 82 % (the other 30 points were lost on technical content, on the design algorithm, and on failure to follow guidelines.) Each student on this team wrote a personal appendix and grades for those

Tech Writing Exam Scores

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Score (%)

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

were 97, 91, 82, and 77 %. These observations show that these four students possessed acceptable writing skills.

Team scores on the final written proposal do not address individual student writing abilities. To consider individual student writing abilities, grades on personal student appendixes (excluding students that must repeat EE415) were considered. These were in the range 77-100%. All of these scores are considered “C or better” thus each student not required to repeat EE415 demonstrated acceptable writing skills.

Student scores on the technical writing exam are shown in Figure G.1. All but one score was greater than 80 %. The low score was 65 % and was obtained by a student who received a 97 % on the “individual student score” in the written final proposal. The technical writing exam was very early in the semester and it appears that this student reinforced his technical writing skills before the semester ended.

Evidence that these EE415 students possessed adequate ability to communicate effectively in oral format is provided by seminar scores. Team scores (ignoring the team required to repeat EE415) were in the range 90-100% with quality very uniform from team to team. This highly uniform quality is partially due to the professional atmosphere surrounding the system that records these student seminars: Academic Media Services. Students are required by the instructor and by Academic Media Services to conduct a rehearsal in the same room and with the same technology that will be used when the seminar is taped while being presented to a live audience. During the rehearsals the entire team proofs and edits each other’s Power Point slides and proofs and edits each other’s oral statements. This contributes to a set of seminars possessing uniform quality. The WSU Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology (CTLT) is working with EECS to encourage the senior design students to include these recorded seminars in their online ePortfolio. Individual student performance was within this same range 90-100%.

The instructor contends that evidence presented in this section demonstrates that this group of EE415 students demonstrated acceptable ability to communicate effectively in written and oral formats.

Figure G.1. Distribution of scores on the technical writing exam.


Each of the EE415 design projects contained global, economic, and societal issues; however, EE415 students were not explicitly evaluated on their ability to utilize their broad education to understand the impact of their engineering solution in these three arenas (global, economic, and societal.) EECS students are equipped with a broad education, partially due to the WSU general education requirements (GERs). The fact that EECS students must pass their GER classes gives evidence of a broad education but that alone does not document that each EE415 student understands the impact of their EE415 engineering design in global, economic, and societal context. This semester, a “trial section” was inserted into the final proposal writing guidelines. The section was entitled Ethical, Societal, and Environmental Issues and the prompt was,

“In this subsection, use at least 50 words to describe ethical, societal, or environmental issues that the team considered while working on this design proposal. You need not cover all of these issues but merely those that relate closely to your project. Prospective issues to comment on include life span of your product, public safety, landfill impact at the end of your product’s lifecycle, esthetics, device failure, public health, etc. These need not be issues that shaped your design but merely topics that the team recognized might be impacted by your design.”

The prompt included a broad set of issues where Outcome H concepts are included as a subset. Table H.1 shows how the teams responded to this prompt. Some responses in this table appear superficial. Dr. Ashley Ater-Kranov, Assistant Director of CTLT is working with EECS to improve the prompt for this section of the EE415 design proposal. She is also considering if there is an effective way to make these “professional skills” issues an integral part of the entire EE415 design proposal, rather than just relegated to one section of the proposal. EECS should also consider if such professional skills should be introduced earlier and more often into the EECS curriculum.

Table H.1. Team responses to the ethical, societal, and environmental issues prompt. Team Name

Response to the Ethical, Societal, and Environmental Issues Prompt

Corsica “Due to the nature of the electric power industry, the financial costs associated with improvements and upgrades like those associated with this project trickle down to the consumer. An addition of hardware to control the voltage at the Wanapum substation may create considerable costs to the utility and thus to the consumer. Adding physical components to the system will obviously impact the local environment. Depending on the physical size of the implementation, the impacts may be minimal.”

Elba “Team Elba is designing a DLR system for Tacoma Power, but must be cautious to identify the design’s effects on those other than the customer. For instance, there could be ethical, societal or environmental issues with the design. The team has thought about issues which could arise. One issue is product installation. Any product which requires the transmission line to be out of service in order to be installed could cause a power outage to customers, or at the very least cause unnecessary strain on the grid. Another issue, looking forward, is that of transmission grid congestion. DLR could be a solution which prevents new lines from being built, since the existing lines could support more load than before. As load increases further, transmission bottlenecks could occur due to lack of construction of new or updated lines. Also, DLR is a technology which pushes the power grid to higher limits than normal, cutting in to the normally conservative safety factor. The electric power grid is important; utilities must consider how their actions affect society now, and also plan for the future. In the same sense, Team Elba must be aware of the ramifications of the EE 416 senior design project.”

Java “The biggest issue Java is faced with is the environmental issues. The gantry cranes are directly above the spill and flood gates and if a fuel leak occurs not only will the water supply be contaminated but the other motors inside the crane will also be affected. Should a spill occur, the cost of cleaning up the spill, or determining if the spill caused any damage to the motors, the crane itself, or the water would be costly.”

Kodiak “Since this wireless lighting system uses RF signals to deliver power, it is almost impossible to avoid using energy storage devices such as capacitors and rechargeable batteries. These energy storage devices contain toxic chemicals such as lead, nickel and zinc, and it is an environmental issue because these substances leak into soil groundwater from landfills. This issue can affect our design because without using energy storage devices, there might not be enough power to power up LED lights. In term of health issue some people might think that the RF signal is going to affect human body. The reason is that RF waves carry energy, and according to Powercast health document [7], X-Rays carry about a billion times more energy than RF waves. Moreover, X-rays can be destructive to living tissues because it can cause ionization whereas the RF is not capable to cause ionization. Moreover, the operating frequency of Powercaster is similar to devices such as cell phones and walkie-talkie. Thus, the team concludes that it is safe to use Powercaster.”

Mindanao “Team Mindanao has spent time considering the possible negative ramifications of the TCDCXO design project could have. The Intellectual Property of Cypress will be protected by Team Mindanao. during the course of the project, team Mindanao will attempt to minimize negative societal and environmental effects. Harmful chemicals dispensed due to the PCB manufacturing are one of the environmental concerns. The valuable resources which are mined from the earth in order to produce the PCB is another concern. EPA guidelines will be met by the team to ensure good environmental practices. The overall integrated product will be designed to benefit society and not be a burden or concern of any sort. Team Mindanao will consciously consider the ethical, societal and environmental concerns while designing the TCDCXO.”

Sumatra “The software simulates a fuel cell system, which brings up a couple of environmental issues. This product will make fuel cell use more practical and efficient due to the control system integration. However, the fuel cell system being modeled is being provided its hydrogen via a fuel reformer, which provides the hydrogen fuel via a process which will output carbon monoxide, which might have an adverse impact on the environment. The lifespan of the project is indeterminate, as the model serves as a basis for future simulation models.”

Timor “The societal issue the team has considered is reliability of the product. Since the power industry already has a set of standards, it will be important for the team’s product to be reliable in order for it gain acceptance in the power industry as a feasible solution to power monitoring. The team has also considered the life span of the product. Since the power industry is fairly stable, if the majority of industries accept the use of the protocol they may not change for many more years. Thus, this gives the product a long life span if accepted. The product will also prevent possible technician injuries because digital signals are much less dangerous than analog signals. Thus, the product has an added safety benefit. Lastly, the product will greatly reduce resources. As the product will be using Ethernet cable or fiber optic, as implemented in the real world, it greatly reduces the amount of copper that is used to monitor the power lines.”


EE415 students are required to read and utilize at least four refereed journal articles in their final proposal. The journal articles demonstrate to the students that the expectations are high for practicing engineers and that learning new topics is essential for their professional growth. The EE415 final report guidelines read in part, “Teams must list at least 15 references. At least four of these must be refereed journal articles.” Table I.1 lists the refereed journal articles cited by the teams in their written final proposals. The team required to repeat EE415 (Java) is excluded from Table I.1. Only one of these teams met the 4 refereed papers requirement; however progress has been made in the sense that last year there were two teams with no refereed journal articles in their design proposal reference list. Table I.1 provides clear evidence that these students have the ability to engage in life long learning.

Table I.1. Refereed journal articles cited by the EE415 design teams in their written final proposals. The team required to repeat EE415 is excluded.

Team Refereed Journal ArticleCorsica [1] C. Chompoo-inwai, W. Lee, P. Fuangfoo, M. Williams, J. R. Liao, “System Impact Study for the

Interconnection of Wind Generation and Utility System”, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 41, No. 1, Jan/Feb, 2005, pg 163.[2] E. Denny, M. O’Malley, “Quantifying the Total Net Benefits of Grid Integrated Wind”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 22, No. 2, May 2007, p 605.[3] C. Abbey, G. Joos, “Supercapacitor Energy Storage for Wind Energy Applications” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 43, No.3, May/June 2007.[4] L. Gyugyi "Power Electronics in Electric Utilities: Static Var Compensators", Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 76, No. 4, April 1988.[5] M.P. Selvan, K.S.Swarup, “Development of Power Flow Software Using Design Patterns”, Power Systems, IEEE Transactions, Vol. 21, No. 2, May 2006, pp 611-618.

Elba [1] Stephen D. Foss, Robert A. Maraio, “Evaluation of an Overhead Line Forecast Rating Algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Volume 7, July. 1992 Page(s): 1618-1627.

Kodiak [1] Chen, K. "Lighting Aesthetics with Energy Saving Ideas," IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications USA," Vol. IA12, no. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1976, pp. 35-38.

Mindanao [1] R. Achenbach, “A digitally temperature-compensated crystal oscillator,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 35, no. 10, p. 1, 2000.[2] J. S. Kathe, “Single line inter ic data transfer - an idea,” IETE Technical Review (Institution of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers, India), vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 491 – 496, 1998.

Sumatra [1] Buller, S., Karden E., Kok, D., De Doncker, R.W. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications. Volume 38. Issue 6. “Modeling the Dynamic Behavior of Supercapacitors Using Impedance Spectroscopy.” November 2002. [2] Gao, Lijun, Liu, Shengyi, and Dougal, Roger. IEEE Transaction Components and Packaging Technologies. Volume 25. Issue 3. “Dynamic Lithium-Ion Battery Model for System Simulation.” September 2002.

Timor [1] Cagil R. Ozansoy, Aladin Zayegh, Akhtar Kalam, “The Real-Time Publisher/Subscriber Communication Model for Distributed Substation Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 22, no. 3, July 2007, pp. 1411-1423.[2] Cagil R. Ozansoy, Aladin Zayegh, and Akhtar Kalam, “The Real-Time Publisher/Subscriber Communication Model for Distributed Substation Systems” in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 22, No. 3, July 2007.


Similar to Item H above, EECS relies upon the student’s GERs to provide breadth in the student’s education. In addition, design projects are solicited from companies and institutions that provide contemporary “real world” design challenges for these EE415 teams. Examples of these contemporary issues and emerging technologies are shown in Table J.1. There are no graded activities or writing guidelines that can be cited to evaluate our student’s mastery of Item J. The prompt question shown in Outcome H could be expanded to include students writing on the topic of “contemporary issues” related to their design project. This “contemporary issues” component will be introduced into EE415 in collaboration with Dr. Ashley Ater-Kranov, Assistant Director of CTLT.

Table J.1. Contemporary issues and emerging technologies affiliated with the Fall 2007 EE415 design projects. The team required to repeat EE415 (Java) is omitted from this table. Team Project Title Contemporary

Issues and Emerging Technologies

Corsica "Voltage Support Procedure"

Wind Generation in Electric Power Systems

Elba "Dynamic Line Ratings"

Limited Right of Way for Electric Power Systems

Kodiak "Wireless Radio Frequency Powered Lighting System for Furniture"

Wireless Technology

Mindanao "Temperature Compensated Digitally Controlled Crystal Oscillator"

Modern Electronic Devices

Sumatra "Development of a Compact Chip-based Controller for a Fuel Cell System Using Matlab/Simulink"

Fuel Cells

Timor "Ethernet-based Communications Network for Protective Relaying "

Digital Communications Networks


Guidelines for the EE415 proposals read in part, "Many of your undergraduate classes teach you how to conduct engineering analysis, modeling and simulations. Recall that these steps are an essential part of the design algorithm. You will participate in lots of these activities in EE416. With at least 100 words describe how the team plans to apply these activities (engineering analysis, modeling and simulation) in EE416 to obtain a more detailed description of your final design. Examples are SPICE simulations, MATLAB tool boxes, digital signal processing, electromagnetic simulation software, VHDL digital design software, ADS RF design software, ASPEN electric power system analysis software, Eagle software for PCB layouts, plant simulators, etc. Ask your mentor and your faculty resource person to recommend other engineering tools you should consider using for this aspect of your project.”

Engineering analysis, modeling and simulation tools listed by the Fall 2007 EE415 teams are shown in Table K.1. These students will work in-depth with these tools in Spring 2007 EE416; however, in EE415 students are introduced by mentors and other professionals to these tools. The proposal writing activity plus prelminary design work in EE415 begins the student’s work on these techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices.

Table K.1. Engineering Analysis, modeling and simulation tools identified in EE415 for use by these students as they finish their design Spring 2007 in EE416. The team required to repeat EE415 (Java) is excluded from this table.Team Engineering Analysis, Modeling and Simulation Tools Listed by

the TeamCorsica Power flow analysis performed in GE PSLF softwareElba LineAmps software packageKodiak SPICE software packageMindanao MatLab software and the PSoC Express simulator softwareSumatra Matlab and SimulinkTimor Software packages: Xsniff, G++ Compiler, Linux C Compiler,

MatLab, Flash

V. Qualitative Assessment of Student Performance: using the arguments above and other data support the claim that students who completed this course with a grade of C or better have achieved each of the intended outcomes of this course.

Seven teams were formed for Fall 2007 EE415. Each team was matched with a project, a sponsoring company or institution, and a mentor. All students on one of these teams received course grades below C and are required to repeat EE415. For the six successful teams, the evidence cited in this report show clear evidence that each student:

(A) Possesses an acceptable ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.(B) Possesses an acceptable ability to design and conduct experiments as well as analyze and interpret data.(C) Possesses an acceptable ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.(D) Possesses an acceptable ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.(E) Possesses an acceptable ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.(F) Possesses an acceptable understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.(G) Possesses an acceptable ability to communicate effectively in written and oral formats.(H) Possesses an acceptable broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, and societal context.(I) Recognizes the need for, and has the ability to engage in life long learning.(J) Possesses a broad education and knowledge of contemporary issues.(K) Possesses an acceptable ability to use techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices.

VI. Concerns: state any concerns you may hold about this class – were the students adequately prepared coming into it? Are there topics or outcomes where (some) students were weak after completing the course? Other concerns? Were there any comments on students’ course evaluations that should be addressed in future instances of the course? This section is very important for improving our program: it provides critical input to the curriculum committee for identifying areas requiring attention.

Development of teaming skills should remain a priority for EE415 but also for the entire EECS schedule of studies. It continues to be important to allow enrollment into EE415 by only qualified students. Immature students weaken teams, degrade project quality. The EE415/416 sequence should be a “just in time for graduation” experience so that the skill set of teams is as strong as possible. Similar to fall 2006, in fall 2007 there was an entire team that received course grades less than C and that team must repeat EE415. Such events leave a poor impression with sponsoring companies and mentors. EECS staff that helps advise students should study students in these two groups (the Vesuvius team in fall 2006 and the Java team in fall 2007) to see if there are common deficiencies for the students on these teams. Clearly these students are not as mature as those on teams requiring only one exposure to EE415. Introducing design concepts earlier in the EECS schedule of studies might minimize the risk of teams needing to repeat EE415. Thanks in part to Casey Hanson’s efforts; one design team sponsor (Ergami, LLC) funded the team (Kodiak) with $5,000 to facilitate their EE416 design work. Casey Hanson continues to solicit funding from sponsoring companies for the design teams.

Academic Media Services (AMS) should record seminars onto DVD media rather than video tape. This will improve the quality of the recorded seminars and make them readily available for inclusion in the student’s ePortfolio.

It is essential that EECS continue to interact with Dr. Ashley Ater-Kranov, Assistant Director of CTLT, in an effort to develop and evaluate our students’ professional skills. EECS should introduce professional skills earlier in the schedule of studies.

(Student evaluations are not available at the time of writing this report.)

Signature _____P. D. Pedrow___________________ Date: __January 4, 2008

Please email a copy of the completed form to Patricia Arnold, [email protected] and deliver a signed hardcopy to her mailbox.

1Washington State UniversitySchool of EECSElectrical Engineering Course Assessment ReportCourse Number EE 416Course Title Electrical Engineering DesignSemester Offered Spring 2008Instructor Patrick Pedrow10th Day Enrollment 27 Number Completing Successfully (C grade or better) 27I. Assessment Outcomes from the Course Syllabus(A) Ability to apply knowledge ofmathematics, science andengineering.(G) Ability to communicate effectivelyin written and oral formats.(B) Ability to design and conductexperiments as well as analyze andinterpret data.(H) A broad education necessary tounderstand the impact of engineeringsolutions in global, economic, andsocietal context.(C) Ability to design a system,component, or process to meet desiredneeds.(I) Recognize the need for, and have theability to engage in life long learning.(D) Ability to function onmultidisciplinary teams.(J) Have a broad education andknowledge of contemporary issues.(E) Ability to identify, formulate, andsolve engineering problems.(K) Ability to use techniques, skills andmodern engineering tools necessaryfor engineering practices.(F) An understanding of professionaland ethical responsibility.II. List of Course Topics from the Course Syllabus1. Team design project2. Weekly oral progress evaluation of teams by instructor3. Written progress report4. Written final report5. Midterm presentations to instructor and faculty/industry mentors6. Final presentations to instructor and faculty/industry mentors7. Poster presentations and equipment demonstrations judged by industry panel

Additional Graded Student Activities:8. Laboratory Notebook9. Peer/Mentor Evaluations10. Broader Impacts Essay2III. Course Assessment Summary Table: one row of the table should be devoted toeach of the checked outcomes in part I.Outcome Topics Specific Measures(A) Ability to apply knowledge ofmathematics, science andengineering.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 • Final Written Report SectionEntitled “Modeling, Simulation, andEngineering Analysis”• Cycles 1-5 of Wednesday Reviewswith Each Team and Each Student(B) Ability to design and conductexperiments as well as analyze andinterpret data.7, 8 • Lab Book• Demonstration Prototype(C) Ability to design a system,component, or process to meetdesired needs.1, 4, 7 • Poster• Written Final Report(D) Ability to function onmultidisciplinary teams.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,9• Cycles 1-5 of Wednesday Reviewswith Each Team and Each Student• Written Progress Report• Poster• Written Final Report• Peer & Mentor Evaluation(E) Ability to identify, formulate, andsolve engineering problems.1, 4, 7, 9 • Poster• Written Final Report• Peer & Mentor Evaluation(F) An understanding of professionaland ethical responsibility.1, 5, 6, 7, 9 • Peer/Mentor Grades(G) Ability to communicateeffectively in written and oralformats.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 • Cycles 1-5 of Wednesday Reviewswith Each Team and Each Student• Written Progress Report• Poster• Written Final Report(H) A broad education necessary tounderstand the impact of engineering

solutions in global, economic, andsocietal context.10 • Broader Impacts Essay(I) Recognize the need for, and havethe ability to engage in life longlearning.3, 4 • Written Final Report(J) Have a broad education andknowledge of contemporary issues.1, 4, 7 • List of Design Projects(K) Ability to use techniques, skillsand modern engineering toolsnecessary for engineering practices.1, 3, 4, 7 • Poster• Written Final Report3IV. Using the table as a guide, for each outcome summarize your evaluation of thestudents’ achievement of that outcome; cite student performance on the identifiedmeasures as evidence to support your conclusions.(A) Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.For archiving and reporting purposes, the instructor gave each team an icon namefrom a list of “islands”. This report will use the icon names for the sake of brevity. TableA.1 gives a summary of team activity for spring 2008 EE416.Each of the six design teams wrote a final report, which contained a mandatorysection entitled “Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis”. Table A.2 lists teams and topicscovered in this section of the final written report. A review of the graded written finalreports shows that the work in this section of the reports was of sufficient quality andquantity to result in no loss of points (for technical content) for these six teams.In addition, each student took an oral evaluation with the instructor 5 times during thesemester. These oral evaluations focused on the math, science, and engineeringknowledge being applied in the students’ modeling, simulation, and analysis activities.Table A.3 lists student scores in these five oral evaluations. Oral evaluation wassupplemented by a review of each student’s laboratory notebook. The lowest score for the“Wednesday Review” oral evaluations was 90% thus all students were quite strongduring these reviews. Points were lost to issues that included insufficient number of labbook entries and insufficient technical progress from one oral review to another.Table A.1. Summary of design teams for EE416 in spring semester 2008.TeamNameNumber ofStudents onTeamSponsor Title of ProjectCorsica 4 Grant CountyPUD"Voltage Support Procedure"Elba 4 Tacoma Power "Dynamic Line Ratings"Kodiak 5 Ergami LLC "Wireless Radio Frequency Powered LightingSystem for Furniture"Mindanao 5 Cypress

Semiconductor"Temperature Compensated DigitallyControlled Crystal Oscillator"Sumatra 4 InnovaTek "Development of a Compact Chip-basedController for a Fuel Cell System UsingMATLAB/Simulink"Timor 5 SEL "Ethernet-based Communications Networkfor Protective Relaying"4Table A.2. Primary topics covered in the Spring 2008 EE416 written final reports in the section entitled“Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis”.Team Name Primary Topics CoveredCorsica MATLAB sofware applied to analysis fo historical power data. A filtration and organizationalalgorithm was created to make the data more accessible and easier to interpret. Power flowanalysis using GE PSLF software. Power flow studies consist of a non-linear system ofequations. The team implemented variations on two particular numerical methods: theNewton-Raphson Method and the Gauss-Seidel Method. The team conducted short circuitanalysis using the ASPEN OneLiner software package. Symmetrical components are used byASPEN to complete the analysis. Single-phase to ground and three-phase faults were studied.Elba This team conducted thermal modeling of transmission lines under various weather conditions.The result of this modeling was the ampacity of various conductors. The transmission lineampacity is not a fixed value, but changes with weather conditions, conductor temperature andoperating conditions. Team modeling included work with the IEEE 738 standard entitled“IEEE Standard for Calculating the Current-Temperature of Bare Overhead Conductors.”MATLAB software was use for many of these calculations. The team used the SEL-421microprocessor relay to calculate the real-time conductor temperature.Kodiak The team simulated the light emitting diodes with PSPICE software. ATektronix 571 curve tracer was used to characterize the light emitting diodes.Photometric data was measured using a luxmeter and stored as a set of valuesthat corresponded to spherical positions using the lamp as the origin. A thirdparty Matlab program was downloaded from Matlab’s online library and itproved very useful in studying various antenna types.Mindanao Frequency deviation for the crystal oscillatore was modeled by the team with a third orderfunction of temperature. The software package MALAB was used to implement a least squaresmethod to fit data. The programmable clock chip achieved frequency correction by slightlyaltering the values of pi-network capacitors. The Steinhart-Hart polynomial equation was usedby the team to model the thermistor used by the team to measure oscillator temperature.Sumatra This team used MATLAB and Simulink to model electrical components foundin a fuel cell-based power supply. The SimPower Toolbox contained in theSimulink environment was an essential tool for this team. The team reliedheavily on a University of Michigan fuel cell model in which a desired currentis taken as input, and the outputs are net power and cell stack voltage.Timor Unified Modeling Language (UML) was used extensively by the team. UMLsdefine each class and show which functions they contain. UMLs made up theskeleton of the team’s program and allowed the student programmers to see ata glance how each class will interacted with the others. The UMLs alsoallowed team members to write pieces of code that pertain to different tasks inparallel because each team member can see what functions each class shouldhave. This maked programming as a team more efficient and allowed the team

to compile the different pieces of code into one working program smoothly. Asecond modeling tool utilized in the project development was MATLAB.Another important engineering analysis tool was the basic Linux consoleprograms that are available on the operating system. One that was particularlyhelpful is tcpdump. Tcpdump is a program that captures all of the networktraffic on a computer and prints the traffic report to the user's screen.5Table A.3. Student scores for five “Wednesday Review” oral evaluations.StudentNumberCycle #1 ofWednesdayReviews(100)Cycle #2 ofWednesdayReviews(100)Cycle #3 ofWednesdayReviews(100)Cycle #4 ofWednesdayReviews(100)Cycle #5 ofWednesdayReviews(100)1 100 100 100 90 1002 100 100 100 100 1003 100 95 100 100 1004 100 95 100 100 1005 100 100 100 90 1006 100 100 100 100 1007 100 100 100 100 1008 100 100 100 90 1009 100 100 100 100 10010 100 100 100 100 10011 100 100 100 100 10012 100 100 100 100 10013 100 100 100 100 10014 100 100 100 100 10015 100 100 100 90 10016 100 100 100 100 10017 100 100 100 100 10018 100 100 100 100 10019 100 100 100 100 10020 100 95 100 100 10021 100 100 100 100 10022 100 100 100 100 10023 100 100 100 100 10024 100 95 100 100 100

25 100 100 100 100 10026 95 95 100 100 10027 100 100 100 100 100(B) Ability to design and conduct experiments as well as analyze and interpret data.Each student was required to keep a laboratory notebook for the duration ofEE416. On five different occasions, the instructor inspected each student’s lab book. Labbook performance contributed to the oral evaluation grades listed in Table A.3. Asmentioned in Section (A), all students performed at or above the 90% level. Theinstructor gave to the students detailed lab book guidelines that read in part:“Generation and protection of intellectual property are other important reasons to keep adetailed lab book. In EE415/416, a well-kept lab book will be a mix of handwrittencomments and attached exhibits. Your lab book can also function as a journal where yourecord your thoughts about the project. It is logical for an instructor to assume that aweak lab book results from insufficient hours per week spent on the project.”6Students received additional exposure to experimental procedure and dataanalysis while designing, constructing, and demonstrating the team’s prototype. Eachteam was required to write about their demonstration prototype in their final reports.Table B.1 shows abbreviated versions of the teams’ prototype “report”. Prototypes couldimpact grades in two ways: 1) in the written final report and 2) in their poster/prototypegrades. A review of the graded written final reports shows that no points were lost totechnical flaws in the prototypes. A review of instructor notes taken during poster/prototype grading shows that for all teams the prototype component was as strong as orstronger than the poster component of the display. These results from lab book andprototype evaluations show that all students passing EE416 spring 2007 semesterdemonstrated an acceptable ability to design and conduct experiments as well as analyzeand interpret data.Table B.1. Team comments on their demonstration prototypes displayed at the end-ofsemesterposter session.Team Name Abbreviated Team Comments on Prototype (From Written Final Reports)Corsica An interactive model of the power system with the voltage procedure enabled wasdemonstrated at the WSU School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science open houseon April 17th. The model consisted of one-line diagrams of the existing and proposed systems,with interactive buttons on various sections of the system. Clicking on different sectionsshowed results from the historical data analysis, power flow simulations, and short circuitanalyses for that particular portion of the system. GE PSLF screenshots of Wind Ridge,Wanapum and Vantage were included to demonstrate the power flows, while ASPEN one-linediagrams were used to illustrate the results from the short circuit analysis. MATLAB plotswere included to exhibit the results from the historical data analysis. The interactive modelwas useful for displaying the physical equipment involved in the system, like the windturbines, hydro-generators, and SVC devices.Elba The components of the prototype consisted of: one variable speed fan, an anemometer, onehandheld FLUKE Multimeter with a thermocouple attachment, one step-down currenttransformer (CT), one Doble F2350 Test System, one PC (with widescreen LCD monitor)running Windows XP, an SEL-421 digital relay, an SEL-2600 RTD Module, one PlatinumRTD, one 19” half rack and one strip of tin fuse wire roughly 80 cm in length. The CTsupplies current to the relay from the Doble Test System which also supplies the currentsource through the tin wire (representing the transmission line). The fan provides a 4 feet persecond breeze perpendicular to the tin wire in order for it to cool due to convection. The SEl-

421 contained logic responsible for calculating the estimated conductor temperature from theambient temperature (collected from the RTD Module) and the current loading through theCT. A FLUKE Multimeter measured the direct temperature of the tin wire, but only forcomparison to the calculated temperature of the SEL-421. The SEL-421 is further configuredto protect the transmission line if the calculated conductor temperature reaches 50°C.Although the relay was not able to completely track the actual conductor temperature duringdynamic-state (immediate increase in current), it was capable of calculating a temperaturewithin a few degrees of the measured temperature. After a short period had passed and thetemperature reached a steady-state, the calculated and measured temperatures agreed to withina few tenths of a degree.Kodiak Two separate prototypes were constructed, one as a moveable desk lamp to show the operationranges, and one as a fixed spot light mounted in the OS1 system to show luminosity. The onlydifference between the two models is a switch in place of the remote controller on the spotlight. The desk lamp prototype consisted of 1 Powercast transmitter, 8 Powercast harvesters, 4super capacitors, 1 DC-DC converter, 1 remote controller and 2 LEDs. Both the Powercasttransmitter and harvesters were purchased as part of a wireless powered Christmas tree. Thesecomponents remained unchanged throughout the prototyping process. Most of the circuit7components were soldered onto 2 circuit boards and hidden in the base of the desk lamp. Theharvesters were daisy-chained in a parallel configuration around the base of the lamp. Theremote controller components were soldered onto a circuit board. The prototypes were built toshow how well the system operates as a whole. Both the desk lamp and fixed spot lightworked as expected within the maxim operating range through proper mediums defined in theresults section. The DC-DC converter was able to regulate the voltage to the light with aninput voltage between V5.1 andV5.2. The super capacitor worked equally well.Mindanao The heart of this prototype was a printed circuit board implementation of the design.Peripheral components that contributed to the characterization of the system were alsoconstructed, including a computer interface for data logging and a heat forcing chamber. Thethermistor was placed next to the crystal to ensure that the temperature that the prototype wascorrecting for was the actual temperature experienced by the crystal. In order to characterizeand test the operation of the prototype several connectors were added to the PCB. A bayonetNeil-Concelman (BNC) connector was added to monitor the clock frequency and a header wasadded to allow probes to be attached to the supply voltage plane, ground plane, and thermistoroutput. Beginning with a fourteen bit digital signal describing the voltage from the temperaturemeasurement component, the lookup table determined the appropriate correction command toapply. During generation, the MatLab code iterated through all possible fourteen bit digitalamplitudes. It converted these amplitudes into the corresponding analog voltage. Using thecharacterization of the temperature measurement component, it determined the equivalenttemperature of operation. Using this temperature and the characterization of the oscillator, itdetermined the expected frequency deviation. Then using this deviation and thecharacterization of the capacitive correction, it determined the appropriate command to send tothe programmable clock chip.Sumatra A Simulink model of a fuel cell with power conditioner circuit was developed by this team. APID control loop was included. A real time graphical user interface (GUI) was added usingMatlab’s GUIDE resource. This allows users to alter the required load for the system and altercontrol parameters to illustrate the system’s response to changing loads. One slider barspecified the power requested by the user in terms of Watts. This power was assumed to be fedto a purely resistive load. A second slider bar altered the gain within the PID control unit. Thehigher the gain the faster the system responded to a change in load. However, higher gains canlead to system instability and are more difficult to implement using hardware.Timor The demonstration prototype was one of the most important goals of the team’s entire projecteffort. This is because all of the work that the team completed was summed up by theprototype. The prototype was used to show what the project accomplished as a whole and howit would be used in a real world setting. In the prototype, there were two different computersrunning the system. The first computer was an SEL 1102. This machine ran the team’s

generator software that emulated the signals that would be coming out of the A/D convertersin a substation. It then sends data packets that conform to the 61850-9-2 packet structureacross the Ethernet to the second machine. This machine was running the monitoring softwarewhich collected the packets and then displayed them for the user to observe. The key factorsthat are shown in this prototype are the team’s ability to emulate power signals inside of asubstation, send power information using the 61850-9-2 packet structure, align the datapackets to make sure they are in the correct order based on time, determine useful powermonitoring information from the data that was sent and display the information in an easilyobservable manner.(C) Ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.In EE415 each team received a sponsoring company or institution and a mentorwho was a practicing engineer or scientist. In EE415 students had already writtenaccepted proposals describing in vague ways the design concept to be pursued in E416.8Teams were expected to iterate on modeling, simulation, and engineering analysis toreach a final design plus construct a working prototype. Students displayed their finaldesigns and prototypes at the EECS open house poster session held on April 17, 2007.All six teams finished the course in a very efficient manner with completed designprojects.Scores on the written final reports for the six teams were 100, 100, 99, 97.5, 92,and 87.5. Teams whose score was greater than 95% lost points only on technical writingissues. The team receiving 92% was too imprecise while designing their temperaturecontrolled oven. The team with 87.5% had weak technical writing skills and failed tocorrect previously graded errors.Poster scores for these six teams were 100, 100, 100, 98, 96, and 90 %. The teamwith 90% lost points due to unclear technical details and due to an unrefinedexperimental setup. In general, the posters looked very professional and the teams wereskilled at discussing their poster and prototype with the instructor, with guests, and with apanel of judges from industry. Scores on the final written reports and the poster sessionshow that students on these six teams clearly showed ability to design a system,component, or process to meet desired needs.(D) Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.Each student in EE416 was on a project team with size 4-5 students. These teamsincluded students with diverse interests (e.g. software, hardware, computer engineering, analogelectronics, electric power, wireless technology, etc.) From the standpoint of majors, the teammembers were a mix of electrical engineering majors and computer engineering majors. Toevaluate a student's effectiveness in the team environment, at the end of the semester each studentand each mentor was asked to prepare an evaluation of the student members of the team. Eachevaluator assigned a grade to each student on the team. Grades solicited from students andmentors were based on the following criteria:A. Student work demonstrates consistently excellent scholastic performance; thoroughcomprehension; ability to correlate the material with other ideas, to communicate and to dealeffectively with course concepts and new material; reliability in attendance and attention toassignments.B. Student work demonstrates superior scholastic performance overall, reliability in attendance,and attention to assignments; may demonstrate excellence but be less consistent than the work ofan A student.C. Student work demonstrates satisfactory performance overall, as well as reliability inattendance, and attention to assignments.

D. Student work demonstrates minimal, barely passing performance overall; limited knowledgeof subject matter.F. Student work demonstrates unsatisfactory performance and comprehension or unfulfilledrequirements. The grade is failing.These letter grades were converted to scores based on the scale: A=100, B=85, C=78,D=50, and F=0. Plus and minus marks were used to interpolate between these values. Thesepeer/mentor scores are summarized in the histogram shown in Figure D.1. While all but onestudent scored greater than 80% there was 1 student that received a mentor/peer score of 69%.For this team the mentor opted to abstain from participating in grading thus this low scoreconsists only of peer grades. Scores given to this student by peers were B+, D, D, and B.Paraphrased comments affiliated with the two D scores included 1) The student had troubleunderstanding what was asked of him; 2) The student did not contribute to the prototype; 3) The9student had very poor communication skills; 4) The student becomes angry/resentful when otherscan’t understand him; 5) The student seems to have poor technical skills as well. This student isone for whom English is a second language. EECS should continue to explore ways to improvethe communication skills possessed by such students. Poor communication skills will reflectnegatively on EECS as this graduate enters the engineering profession. Senior design classesEE415/416 are not effective at filtering out students with weak communication skills becauseteam work is emphasized and the mandatory cycles of proofing and editing acts to obscur anindividual’s weak communication skills and the resulting weak teaming skills possessed by thestudent.Peer grading remains “volatile” thus it receives only 5% weighting toward the courseaverage. The term volatile is used to describe the fact that a team completing a design with Cwork sometimes merely gives the obligatory “A” to their peers with the understanding that theytoo will receive an “A” from their colleagues. At the opposite extreme is the student with apersonality conflict with a team mate who gives an artificially low peer grade to that student. Aneffective way to filter this type of noise from the grading process is to give it reduced weight. InFigure D.1 the student with a mentor/peer score of 69% went on to pass EE416 with a grade of Cor better yet they possessed a very marginal ability to function in a teaming environment.Not only did the students on a team represent a broad spectrum of specialties (thus theywere multidisciplinary teams) but the topics for each team were also multidisciplinary. All sixdesign projects were broad in nature and cut across many disciplines. Mentors and co-mentorsincluded electrical engineers, computer engineers, a chemical engineer, a design specialist, achemical engineer, a physicist, a mechanical engineer, and a biologist.The interdisciplinary nature of the topics covered will now be listed briefly for each team.The Corsica team worked with voltage support procedures including buck/boost controlprocedures; power system stability and reliability; large wind projects; wind generators; powerelectronics; static VAR devices; hydroelectric dams; power flow modeling; and fault currentanalysis including three-phase and single-phase to ground faults. The Elba team worked withdynamically predicting conductor current rating; designing a dynamic line rating (DLR) system; aSEL-421 digital relay that is capable of calculating the conductor temperature as a function oftime; thermal and heat flow models; the IEEE 738 standard entitled “IEEE Standard forCalculating the Current-Temperature of Bare Overhead Conductors; Matlab simulations; and ahuman machine interface. The Kodiak team worked with a wireless powered lighting system; anencoder/decoder electronic system; super capacitors; an RF transmitter and receiver for remotecontrol; a DC-DC converter; light meters; light emitting diodes; a software package to simulatethe radiation pattern from multiple antennas; and other software packages that include Matlab,LTSpice, AGI32, and PSPICE. The Mindanao team worked with making a clock signal with anearly constant frequency in a variable temperature environment; a programmable system on achip; a programmable clock chip; and printed circuit boards. The Sumatra team worked with

simulations for a fuel cell-based power supply, a PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) fuel cell,thermodynamic calculations, MATLAB, and Simulink. The Timor team worked with designing adigital communication system to be used for monitoring power lines; a data packetizer; anEthernet manager; a time aligner; an SQL database; and two graphical user interfaces.The paragraphs shown above give evidence that the EE416 students demonstrated anacceptable ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.10Peer/Mentor Grades05101520250102030405060708090100Score (%)Number of Students

Figure D.1. Histogram of peer/mentor grades.(E) Ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.Each team of students was required to complete an engineering design project thatwas completely "open ended". An industry professional acted as mentor. Four of the sixteams were also assigned at least one co-mentor by their sponsor. There were also severalother professionals available as resource persons for the teams (the instructor and afaculty resource person for each team.) An important part of the design project isiteratively applying the steps of modeling, simulation, engineering analysis, andrefinement. As part of the design project, each team was required to participate in oraland written progress reports, a poster with working demonstration prototype and a writtenfinal report. Guests at the EECS open house attended the poster presentation. An industryjudging team evaluated the poster presentations and named the top three posters (thiscompetition included Computer Science design posters as well). The overall studentgrades for spring 2008 EE416 ranged from A to B showing that all students were clearlyable to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems.(F) An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.Students in EE416 demonstrate their understanding of professional and ethicalresponsibility as they interact with peers on their team and as they interact with the teammentor. The instructor assumes that students displaying errant professional and ethicalbehavior will receive low peer/mentor grades. Table F.1 lists the mentors for the spring2008 EE416 teams. Mentors interacted with team members in the following venues: 1)face-to-face team meetings, 2) conference calls, 3) email exchanges, 4) telephone calls, 5)review of drafts of written progress report, 6) review of drafts of written final report, 7)review of drafts of the team poster, and 8) by attending with the instructor at least oneoral “Wednesday review” session. Table F.2 shows composite peer/mentor scores forstudents in EE416 spring 2008. In Table F.2 only the student at row #24 received a scorelow enough to warrant concern. In this case the mentor refrained from grading the teamthus the low score is due entirely to peer grades. As mentioned earlier in this report,scores given to this student by peers were B+, D, D, and B. Paraphrased comments affiliated withthe two D scores included 1) The student had trouble understanding what was asked of him; 2)

The student did not contribute to the prototype; 3) The student had very poor communicationskills; 4) The student becomes angry/resentful when others can’t understand him; 5) The student11seems to have poor technical skills as well. This student clearly had weak skills associated withunderstanding of professional and ethical responsibility. The instructor assumes that if thementor observed unprofessional or unethical behavior then they would have discussed itwith the instructor and/or participated in mentor grading so that the issue would bedocumented. Singling out such a student from a team environment is very difficult;however, the “yellow slip” available to teams allows a team to severely penalize a studentif there is unanimous consensus that the student has blatantly exhibited non-professionalbehavior. With the exception of the student at row #24 in Table F.2, there appears to beample evidence to support the instructor’s claim that these students showed an acceptableunderstanding of their professional and ethical responsibilities.Table F.1. Mentors for EE416 during spring 2008.Team Name MentorCorsica Mr. Rodney Noteboom, PEElectrical EngineerGrant County PUDPO Box 878Ephrata, WA 98823Elba Mr. Mark PigmanSubstation EngineeringT&D EngineeringTacoma PowerTacoma, WAKodiak Mr. Joe Felice, CEOErgami, LLCPO Box 725Liberty Lake, WAMindanao Mr. Greg BarnesDesign Engineering Department ManagerCypress Semiconductor121 Sweet AvenueMoscow, IDSumatra Dr. Quentin MingClearEdge Power7205 NW Evergreen ParkwayHillsboro, OR 97124Timor Mr. Greg ZweigleElectrical EngineerSchweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.2350 NE Hopkins CourtPullman, WA 9916312Table F.2. Peer/mentor composite grades for EE416 spring 2008.StudentRowNumberCompositePeer/MentorGrade (100)1 90

2 1003 994 885 1006 1007 1008 1009 9610 10011 10012 9613 9514 10015 10016 9617 10018 9619 8920 10021 9622 10023 9624 6925 8526 9227 100(G) Ability to communicate effectively in written and oral formats.The instructor made several assignments designed to enhance written and oralpresentation skills. EE416 is a “writing in the major” or [M] course and technical writingassignments are integral parts of the class activities. One form of written communicationwas design and printing of a poster describing their project. The instructor circulatedguidelines for the posters and asked students to examine research posters displayed byothers on campus. Students received guidelines for their written reports. Students firstreviewed their technical writing textbook. Students invited their mentor to edit drafts oftheir written reports. All team members were to proof read the written documents. Gradeson the written progress reports were in the range 60-98%. For the written final reportsgrades were in the range 88-100%. While there might have been concern with respect tothe progress report lowest score of 60% all teams improved their technical writing suchthat the weakest score on the final report was a respectable grade of 88%. Five oral13“Wednesday reviews” were required for each team with each student responsible for atleast 5 minutes of the oral evaluation. Each team was required to have their mentor attendone of these review sessions. This Wednesday review activity simulated technicalmeetings that are an important part of the engineer’s professional career. The ranges ofstudent scores for these five oral reviews were 95-100, 95-100, 100-100, 90-100, and100-100 %, respectively. These are very satisfactory scores. Another oral communicationrequirement was that the teams presented their poster to guests at the EECS open housein April 2008. Showing the demonstration prototype also required oral communicationskills. All teams performed well at the poster session. Observations described in thisparagraph indicate that these students have an acceptable ability to communicateeffectively in written and oral formats.

(H) A broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions inglobal, economic, and societal context.EECS students are equipped with a broad education, partially due to the WSUgeneral education requirements (GERs). The fact that EECS students must pass theirGER classes gives evidence of a broad education but that alone does not document thateach EE416 student understands the impact of their EE416 engineering design in global,economic, and societal context. Each EE416 student was required to write a short essayusing the prompt shown in Table H.1. A randomly selected essay is shown in Table H.2.The essay was a mandatory activity; however, the essay score contributed only 5% to thecourse grade. Consequently the essays tended to be rather superficial. The WSU Centerfor Teaching, Learning, and Technology (CTLT) is still helping the instructor evaluatethese essays. Knowing that the essay is a required component to the course does make thestudents take note of professional skills issues; however, it is difficult to invoke that theessays themselves is sufficient evidence that the students possessed a broad educationnecessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, andsocietal context. Continued interaction with CTLT will continue in an effort to improveour ability to assess this ABET outcome.14Table H.1. Essay prompt related to global, economic, and societal issues associated with the designprojects.Introduction:Knowledge of contemporary issues and an understanding of the impact of engineeringsolutions in global, economic, environmental, and cultural/societal contexts are crucialskills for 21st century professional engineers.Essay Prompt:In your introduction, show how the problem your team is tackling is related to a broadercontemporary issue. Then, describe the impact that your team’s engineering solution willhave in global, economic, environmental, and cultural/societal contexts. Be sure toprovide specific examples, using data and evidence from your project and other pertinentsources (if needed). Your conclusion should specify how your solution addresses theproblem both professionally and ethically. The audience for this essay is a potentialemployer.Clarifications:Contemporary issues can be either technical or non-technical. An example of a technicalcontemporary issue is: Does your design consider the fact that wireless devices arepervasive in modern societies? An example of a non-technical contemporary issue is:Does your design consider the fact that in the U.S. there is a profound demographicchange as the median age increases significantly? Global can be taken to mean bridgingtwo or more cultures. Societal can be taken to mean issues associated with groups ofpeople and their beliefs, practices and needs.Assessment of your essay will be coordinated by the WSU Center for Teaching, Learning,and Technology. A panel of WSU instructors will assist with the assessment.15Table H.2. Randomly selected essay.One of the most necessary and volatile commodities in America is energy. The need forenergy not only permeates into every facet of our lives, but dictates political and social agendasat home and abroad. Today in America, there is a large movement towards alternative sources ofenergy. Energy that is renewable, does not have to be imported from volatile parts of the world,

and is friendly to the environment. One particular example of a renewable energy source is wind.Wind generation poses many engineering challenges that need to be met to successfully integratelarge amounts of wind and other variable energy sources into the electric power grid. TeamCorsica’s, “Voltage Control Procedure for Wanapum Substation,” is a small example of theengineering work needed to verify if the current implementations of wind generation aresufficient to be executed on an even larger scale than what exists is today.Socially, the issue of “green” energy has become a very hot topic. More and morepeople are pushing for it as reports of global warming fly through the media. The carbon dioxideemitted from coal and other fossil fuel burning plants have been deemed a threat to theenvironment by the green movement. With the engineering work done by Team Corsica, betterVAr support procedures will help maintain a set voltage at substations that are connected to windfarms; creating a more reliable and cleaner power network in the United States. The proceduredeveloped with Grant County PUD and Team Corsica only corresponded to the WanapumSubstation; though, the methods of historical data analysis, power flow simulation modeling, andfault analysis can be adapted to similar scenarios.Over the years, energy has been the driving force in American foreign policy; keepingthe economy running strong helps when energy is cheap. The United States purchases oil andnatural gas from a few countries that do not like us. Because of America’s addiction to foreignoil, we fund the people who hate us. The current military actions in Iraq are a testament to thecost the United States pays for these actions. In addition, the rising energy needs of India andChina further augment the fight over global energy resources. Consequently, if the driving issueof “Climate Change” turns out to not be true, there are many other advantages of producing cleanenergy at home.Work that is being done to further green energy also acts to create jobs and give theUnited States a technical edge. As said before, there is a large movement towards clean andrenewable energy sources throughout the world. This emerging market would be great for U.S.industry and should prove to be fruitful for many years.To summarize, the “Voltage Control Procedure for Wanapum Substation” is only asmall piece to a very large puzzle. These types of problems must be broken down intomanageable portions. What was done by Team Corsica could be seen as just an engineeringproject to solve some abstract technical problem that the rest of the world would not even botherto notice. However, this abstract problem is linked to many bigger problems that affect everyonearound the world.(I) Recognize the need for, and have the ability to engage in life long learning.EE416 students are required to read and utilize at least four refereed journalarticles that were to be cited in their written final report. The journal articles show thestudents that the expectations are high for practicing engineers and that learning newtopics will permeate all of their professional lives. In Table I.1 all teams presented thefour journal references. Table I.1 shows that these students have the ability to engage inlife long learning.16Table I.1. Refereed journal articles cited by the EE416 design teams in their written final reports.Team Refereed Journal ArticleCorsica [1] E. Denny, M. O’Malley, “Quantifying the Total Net Benefits of GridIntegrated Wind”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 22, No. 2, May2007, p 605.Corsica [3] C. Chompoo-inwai, W. Lee, P. Fuangfoo, M. Williams, J. R. Liao, “SystemImpact Study for the Interconnection of Wind Generation and Utility System”,IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 41, No. 1, Jan/Feb, 2005, pg163.Corsica [4] C. Han, A. Huang, M. Baran, W. Litzenberger, L. Anderson “STATCOMImpact Study on the Integration of a Large Wind Farm into a Weak Loop Power

System” IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2008,pp 226 – 233.Corsica [11] A. Keyhani, A. Abur, S. Hao, “Evaluation of power flow techniques forpersonal computers”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 4, Issue 2,May 1989, pp. 817 – 826.Elba . [3] John R. Harvey, “Creep of Transmission Line Conductors,” IEEETransactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-88, No. 4, April1969.Elba [7] Stephen D. Foss, “Dynamic Line Rating In The OperatingEnvironment.” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 5, No. 2, April1990.Elba [16] D.G. Harvard, G. Bellamy, et. el., “Aged ACSR Conductors Part 1-Testing Procedures for Conductors and Line Items,” IEEE Transactions onPower Delivery, Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1992.Elba [17] R.D. Findlay, V.T. Morgan, “The Effect Of Frequency On TheResistance And Internal Inductance Of Bare ACSR Conductors,” IEEETransactions on Power Delivery, Vol. 6, No. 3, July 1991.Kodiak [4] John Zhang, Ian Ashdown, Ian Lewin, “Linear Moving-DetectorPhotometer: A New Design Concept/Discussions”, Journal of the IlluminatingEngineering Society; Winter 2004; Vol 33, Issue 1; Research Library pp. 75.Kodiak [13] H. Kim, B. N. Popov, “Mathematical model of RuO2/Carbon CompositeElectrode for Supercapacitors”, Journal Electrochemical Society, 2003Kodiak [16] J.N. Marie-Francoise, H. Gualous, R. Outbib, and A. Berthon, “42 VPower Net with Supercapacitor and Battery for Automotive Applications”,Journal of Power Sources, vol. 143, issues 1-2, 27 April 2005, pp. 275-283.Kodiak [18] Georgiana Daian, “Modeling the Dielectric Properties of Wood”, WoodScience Technology, vol 40, pp. 237-246, Jan 2006.Mindanao [3] R. Achenbach, “A digitally temperature-compensated crystal oscillator,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, Vol. 35, No. 10, p. 1, 2000.Mindanao [5] A. Atieg, “A class of methods for fitting a curve or surface to data byminimizing the sum of squares of orthogonal distances,” Journal ofComputational and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 158, No. 2, pp. 277-296, 2003.Mindanao [7] L. Brocker, “Euler integration and euler multiplication,” Advances inGeometry, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 145, 2005.17Mindanao [8] D. Cigoy, “Basics of temperature measurement-thermistors,” ControlEngineering, Vol. 53.5, 2006.Sumatra [1] Avargel, Y and Cohen, I. “Adaptive system identification in the shorttimeFourier transform domain using cross-multiplicative transfer functionapproximation.” Jan. 2008. IEEE transactions. Vol. 16. Feb. 12, 2008.Sumatra [3] Dougal, Roger and Jiang, Zhenhua. “Real-time strategy for active powersharing in a fuel cell powered battery charger.” Journal of Power Sources.Vol. 142 (2005) pp. 253–263.Sumatra [13] Ogata, M. and Nishi, T. "Topological criteria for switched mode DCDCconverters" Circuits and Systems Vol. 3 (2003) pp. 184 -187.Sumatra [18] Y. Xue, L. Chang, S.B. Kjaer, J. Bordonau, T. Shimizu,” Topologiesof Single-Phase Inverters for Small Distributed Power Generators: An

Overview” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 1305 – 1314.Timor [7] T. Kostic, O. Preiss, C. Frei, "Understanding and Using the IEC 61850:A Case for Meta-Modelling," Elsevier Journal of Computer Standards &Interfaces, vol. 27/6, pp. 679-695, 2005.Timor [11] H. Schubert; G. Wong, “Towards seamless communications insubstations” The IET Power Engineer, vol. 17/4, pp. 20-23, 2003.Timor [12] Cagil R. Ozansoy, Aladin Zayegh, Akhtar Kalam, “The Real-TimePublisher/Subscriber Communication Model for Distributed SubstationSystems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 22, no. 3, July 2007,pp. 1411-1423.Timor [13] Otto Preiss, Alain Wegmann, “Towards a composition model problembased on IEC61850”, Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 65, no. 3, 2003,pp.227-23618(J) Have a broad education and knowledge of contemporary issues.Similar to Item H above, EECS relies partially upon the student’s GERs toprovide breadth in the student’s education. In addition, design project are solicited fromcompanies and institutions that provide contemporary “real world” design challenges forthese EE416 teams. Examples of these contemporary issues and emerging technologiesare shown in Table J.1. There are no graded activities or writing guidelines that can becited to evaluate our student’s mastery of Item J; however, the fact that thy wereimmersed in their design project for two semesters combined with Table J.1 shows thatthese students have a broad education and knowledge of contemporary issues.Table J.1. Contemporary issues and emerging technologies affiliated with the spring 2008 EE416 designprojects.Team Item Designed Contemporary Issues and Emerging TechnologiesCorsica Voltage Control Algorithm Wind PowerElba Dynamic Line Current Rating Energy Systems, Upgrading DecayingInfrastructureKodiak Wireless Power Source forDesk LightingWireless SystemsMindanao Temperature-compensatedClock SignalCell Phone TechnologySumatra Model of Biofuel-based FuelCell SystemGreen Energy SystemsTimor LAN-based Power SystemData Acquistion SystemEnergy Systems, Upgrading the DecayingInfrastructure(K) Ability to use techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary forengineering practices.Each team used at least one modern software package in their design work: 1) TheCorsica team used Aspen software to analyze load flow scenarios; 2) The Elba team usedLineAmps software to calculate the dynamic line rating of transmission lines; 3) TheKodiak team used AGI32, a lighting calculation software made by Lighting Analysts; 4)The Mindanao team used MATLAB for circuit analysis; 5) The Sumatra team used

Simulink to simulate fuel cell systems; and 6) The Timor team used PHP software fordata acquisition and archiving.V. Qualitative Assessment of Student Performance: using the arguments above andother data support the claim that students who completed this course with a gradeof C or better have achieved each of the intended outcomes of this course.Scores on the final written reports and the poster session presentations (includingthe demonstration prototypes) show clear evidence that each team has shown the abilityto 1) design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs, 2) function as amultidisciplinary team, 3) identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems, 4)communicate effectively in written and oral formats, and 5) use techniques, skills andmodern engineering tools necessary for engineering practices. The instructor conducted19oral evaluations (and inspected individual student lab books) five times during thesemester with each student. These evaluations were designed to insure that each studentwas contributing effectively to the team and thus that the individual students had thesesame abilities.VI. Concerns: state any concerns you may hold about this class – were the studentsadequately prepared coming into it? Are there topics or outcomes where (some)students were weak after completing the course? Other concerns? Were there anycomments on students’ course evaluations that should be addressed in futureinstances of the course? This section is very important for improving our program:it provides critical input to the curriculum committee for identifying areas requiringattention.The “yellow slip” policy described in the spring 2007 assessment reportwas included this semester and it was successful in the sense that it inspired one team tomeet with the instructor and discuss in a very frank way the marginal teaming skill of oneof their team members. After discussing the situation more carefully amongst themselves,the team decided not to issue the yellow slip but the discussions it prompted were veryvaluable for instructor and students alike. The broader impacts essay is useful in the sensethat it has kept CTLT active in assisting the instructor to assess the professional skillsparts of the ABET outcomes. CTLT is still analyzing the broader impact essays.Signature __________________________________________ Date: __________Please email a copy of the completed form to Patricia Arnold, [email protected] anddeliver a signed hardcopy to her mailbox.

Appendix ESystems Area Assessment Summary Report

Individual course assessment reports can be seen at http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~schneidj/Assessment/ee.html

EE Systems Area ABET report for Academic year 2007-2008

Courses covered: EE221, EE321, EE341, EE451, EE464, and EE489.

Observation from reportsAll the reports indicate that the students successfully completing one of the above courses have achieved the intended ABET assessment outcomes for that course. For the most part, the instructors were satisfied with the overall preparation of the students entering the course and performance of the students at the end of the course. Significant variation in student programming skills was a concern in EE221. Change in EE graduation requirements (programming courses) could have contributed to this; this variation has improved in Fall 2008. Inadequate matlab skills were again a concern expressed in some courses, though an improvement (over previous years) was noted. The introduction of EE 221 (Numerical Computing for Engineers) seems to have helped in this respect. The math background of some students was again a concern in many courses. Application of concepts learnt in prerequisite courses was also a concern in some cases. On the positive side, students were better able to assimilate different concepts when applied to a course design project. Communication skills (written and oral) were generally adequate; providing appropriate feedback based on interim reports helped the students learn to prepare a good final report.

Recommendations EE441: It was generally agreed that EE441 (or a controls laboratory) needs to

be offered as a senior elective in the near future. Instructor resource continues to be a concern. There is strong student interest and instructor willingness to offer the course. Hopefully the School can provide additional resources to offer this in the near future.

Follow up with Changes EE221: The experience so far has been positive. Students have generally

better matlab skills than in previous years. We will continue to monitor the progress and make changes in EE221 as required.

EE341: Stat 360 has been added as a co-req. to EE341 and a probability application has been added to EE341 (starting Fall 2007). Frequency modulation has also been dropped. So far, the changes have been reasonably well received.

Appendix FMicroelectronics Area Assessment Summary

Report

Individual course assessment reports can be seen at http://www.eecs.wsu.edu/~schneidj/Assessment/ee.html

To: Curriculum CommitteeFrom: George La RueSubject: Microelectronics Area Committee Recommendations

The microelectronics area committee met November 20, 2008 with Professors Heo, LaRue and Osman present. Input from Professor Ringo was received on November 21 and all professors reviewed the recommendations. The committee has the following recommendations based on the assessments for the 2007-2008 academic year for courses EE311 and EE476 and EE477.

For EE311: With recent changes in the students’ curriculum too much is being asked of EE311 to

provide a proper understanding of electronics. Today, no associated electronics laboratory and no course in either electronic materials or elementary device physics are required by electrical engineering students. Many students have no practical grasp of the material without an associated lab. Last year we agreed that a more closely coupled co-requisite lab course EE352 would help students understand the circuits and concepts better. We now recommend that students be required to take EE352 concurrently with EE311 and we will work with the EE Curriculum Committee to modify the requirements. We will work with the EE352 instructor to modify EE352 to coordinate the lab experiments to better help student understanding of EE311 material. Computer engineering students currently are not required to take EE352. This change in requirements will need to be addressed by the Computer Engineering Curriculum Committee.

The average percentage of students failing EE311 dropped to about 10%, which is down from 20% last year and 35% the year before. We will continue to monitor this.

EE311 emphasizes problem solving skills, with which the students seem not to have experience. Many students coming into EE311 have trouble with resistor divider problems. We recommend continuing to spend time in lecture at the beginning of the semester reviewing basics and/or having problem solving sessions starting early in the semester. In addition, we also recommend that EE311 instructors give a 10 question exam on material they should have learned in EE261 that is critical to doing well in EE311. Students are required to get 9 correct answers in order to stay in the class. Students will have 5 attempts.

Some students have complained about the book. We tried a different book a couple years ago, which did not work out well, and we went back to a newer edition of Sedra and Smith. We will continue looking for a better book.

For EE476 There were only 5 undergraduates that took the course in Fall 2007 compared to 10 and

11 the previous 2 years. Student performance was good and the third exam scores improved to a reasonable value. It is recommended to keep the weighting of time spent on each topic the same and see if the third exam scores remain elevated over a larger sample of students.

Enrollment in Fall 2008 increased to 12 undergraduate students so the enrollment drop seems to be a one time event.

For EE477 EE477 was not taught this year. Due to lack of microelectronics faculty, it is not expected

to be taught in the next year or two and has been removed from the course catalog. It may be resurrected and offered as a combination graduate/undergraduate lab in the future.

Appendix GEE Senior Curricular Debrief Session Report

Electrical and Computer Engineering Programs

WSU College of Engineering & Architecture

2008 Curricular Debrief Project to Assess ABET Outcomes 3f-j

DRAFT Findings and Recommendations

Prepared by: Ashley Ater Kranov

Date: August 11, 2008

Purpose This draft has been prepared by the Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology (CTLT) for the Electrical and Computer Engineering (EE & CE) programs. Please record your comments and questions as you read and reflect on this information. The value of this information depends on EE & CE administrations and faculty discussing it,

determining what it means to the two programs and making decisions based on that shared understanding. CTLT is available to consult and collaborate with EE and CE faculty to implement recommendations.Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. 2007 Findings, Recommendations and 2007-2008

Programmatic Changes

III. Overview of 2008 Curricular Debrief Process and

Procedures

IV. Findings for Spring 2008

1. Faculty ratings of the curricular debrief discussion2. Faculty comments on student performance of each ABET

outcome3. Summary of student focus group 4. Faculty comments on the curricular debrief

process/procedures

V. CTLT Recommendations and Next Steps for 2008-2009

VI. Faculty Recommendations and Next Steps for 2008-2009

VII. Conclusion

VIII. Appendices

A. 2008 Curricular Debrief Scenario and InstructionsB. 2008 Student Discussion transcriptC. 2008 Student Focus Group transcriptD. 2007-2008 ABET Professional Skills Rubric (separate document)E. 2008 Revised ABET Professional Skills Rubric (separate document)

I. Executive SummaryWashington State University’s (WSU) Electrical and Computer Engineering (EE & CE) programs have been participating in the college-wide curricular debrief project to directly measure programmatic efficacy in developing students’ professional skills since spring 2007. Using the ABET Professional Skills rubric, EE and CE faculty rated and discussed one of the three spring 2008 student group curricular debrief discussions.

Assessment specialists from the WSU Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology (CTLT) compiled and analyzed the findings, as well as made recommendations for program improvement. This assessment provides data to inform the ongoing improvement of the EE and CE program and also supports work towards the CEA’s re-accreditation by ABET and WSU’s re-accreditation by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges. This direct assessment method has been recognized by both ABET and ASEE as a solid and innovative direct method for developing and assessing professional skills simultaneously. The paper describing this project won the 2008 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Best Paper Award.

2008 FindingsStudent group performanceAccording to faculty ratings, the EECE student group performed very near, at or above competency that the programs would like students to exhibit upon graduation (professional-entry level rating = 4) on all 5 outcomes:

3f: the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (average= 4.3)1

3g: the ability to communicate effectively (average= 4.3) 3h: the ability to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global,

economic, environmental, and societal context (average= 3.8) 3i: the ability to engage in life-long learning (average= 4) 3j: the knowledge of contemporary issues (average= 3.8)

Comparison with 2007 FindingsThe 2008 EECE group compared to the 2007 EE student group performed, on average, .3 points higher on outcomes 3f and 3g; .2 points lower on 3h; .8 points lower on 3i and 1.5 points higher on 3j. The 2008 EECE group compared to the 2007 CE student group performed, on average, .3 points higher on outcomes 3f; .4 points lower on 3g; the same on 3h; .7 points lower on 3i; and .2 points lower on 3j.

Rater ReliabilitySpring 2008 rater reliability was strong, with raters consistently rating within one point of each other. This is notable since there was not time to conduct a “norming” session, that representatives from both programs participated, and that one of the faculty raters was new to the assessment.

II. 2007 Findings, Recommendations and 2007-2008 Programmatic Changes2007 Electrical Engineering FindingsThe 2007 EE student group performed at or above graduating competency on 4 out of 5 outcomes; it performed significantly lower on outcome (3j) knowledge of contemporary issues.

3f: the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (4.0)2

3g: the ability to communicate effectively (4.0)

1This number represents an average of the three faculty ratings on each ABET outcome.2 This number represents an average of the two faculty ratings on each ABET outcome.

3h: the ability to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context (4.0)

3i: the ability to engage in life-long learning (4.8) 3j: the knowledge of contemporary issues (2.3)

Faculty had high rater reliability, scoring consistently within one point of each other on all rubric dimensions. See Figure 1 for a histogram of the ratings.

Figure 1. 2007 WSU Electrical Engineering Program Curricular Debrief Faculty Ratings

2007 Electrical Engineering Faculty and Student Recommendations

Emphasize team communication in courses, especially EE 415 and 416. This could also occur earlier in the curriculum in labs by rotating team leaders in the assigned team experiments.

Incorporate discussion of ethics more explicitly into EE 415 and 416, and surface these issues in other core courses where appropriate.

Emphasize economic impacts in the core curriculum and perhaps as a separate elective.

Faculty should emphasize societal context and contemporary issues in informal conversations, which may motivate and engage students.

In Engineering Administration and/or Senior Design (as well as in appropriate elective courses), there should be more explicit discussion of concept of standards and their relevance in engineering practice.

Students expressed that they would like to feel that their courses applied to “the real world,” as well as to improving their professional skills. Students expressed a need to see their professors as engineers, not just teachers. Professors could discuss what they did in previous engineering jobs, or what engineers typically do on the job.

2007 Computer Engineering FindingsThe 2007 CE student group performed near, at or above graduating competency on all 5 outcomes.

3f: the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (4.0)3

3g: the ability to communicate effectively (4.7) 3h: the ability to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global,

economic, environmental, and societal context (3.8) 3i: the ability to engage in life-long learning (4.0) 3j: the knowledge of contemporary issues (3.8)

Faculty had high rater reliability, scoring consistently within one point of each other on all rubric dimensions. See Figure 2 for a histogram of the ratings.

3 This number represents an average of the three faculty ratings on each ABET outcome.

Figure 2. 2007 WSU Computer Engineering Program Curricular Debrief Faculty Ratings

2007 Computer Engineering Faculty and Student Recommendations Have student teams discuss or complete assignments addressing real-world

problems in courses such as Computer Architecture 334. EE 415 & 416 (the senior design courses for Computer Engineering students) was

not mentioned by students as helping them address the curricular debrief scenario. The senior design course should explicitly address professional skills.

In Engineering Administration and/or Senior Design (as well as in appropriate elective courses), there should be more explicit discussion of concept of standards and their relevance in engineering practice.

Students requested a 1-credit course using roundtable discussions on current events connecting technology and engineering. This course would substitute for another 1-credit course. Students also suggested that professors have students discuss hypothetical, real-world issues in class and complete assignments to “design something relevant to society.” In addition, students asked for more emphasis on long-term career goals in class.

III. Overview of Spring 2008 Curricular Debrief Process and Procedures

Three 45-minute curricular debrief session were conducted with all students enrolled in EECS 416, the second of a two-semester senior design course for both EE and CE majors in March 2008. This draft only reports one of the curricular debrief sessions since faculty still need to meet and rate the other two discussions. 9 male students participated in this session, 6 Caucasian and 3 Minority. Students discussed an issue regarding the potential link of childhood leukemia to overhead power lines (see Appendix A for the scenario and instructions). The curricular debrief discussion was taped and then transcribed (see Appendix B). Three focus groups with the same students followed each discussion to determine how students thought that they had gained the professional skills they used to address the issues raised in the scenario, as well as to elicit their perspectives regarding program strengths and areas for improvement. The focus group discussions were taped and then transcribed. This draft only reports the focus group discussion following the accompanying curricular debrief (see Appendix C for the focus group discussion transcript). Because of time constraints, a “norming” session was not conducted with the three faculty (2 from EE, one of whom had participated in the 2007 rating session, and 1 from CE who was part of the 2007 assessment cohort). The 2008 faculty cohort focused on rating the quality of the 2008 curricular debrief discussion using the ABET Professional Skills rubric (see Appendix D for the rubric and Figure 3 for the ratings).

IV. Findings for Spring 20081. Faculty Ratings of the Curricular Debrief Discussion

According to faculty ratings, the student group performed very near, at or above competency that the programs would like students to exhibit upon graduation (professional-entry level rating = 4) on all 5 outcomes:

3f: the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (4.3) 3g: the ability to communicate effectively (4.3) 3h: the ability to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global,

economic, environmental, and societal context (3.8) 3i: the ability to engage in life-long learning (4.0) 3j: the knowledge of contemporary issues (3.8)

Spring 2008 rater reliability was strong, with raters consistently rating within one point of each other. This is notable since there was not time to conduct a “norming” session, that representatives from both programs participated, and that one of the faculty raters was new to the assessment.

Figure 2. 2008 WSU Electrical and Computer Engineering Program Curricular Debrief Faculty Ratings4

2. Faculty Comments on Student Performance of Each ABET Outcome

(3f) the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

Faculty B: “Several solutions: underground, (illegible), air filtering, covering, move away. Issues: poor people, hysteria.” (5.0)

Faculty C: “Though the students framed the professional challenge, they only suggested some approaches, but no concrete steps to solve the problem. It seemed a little superficial.” (4.0)

Faculty E: “Concern for poor moving in if property values go down. Some of what they said seemed cynical.” (4.0)

(3g) the ability to communicate effectively

4 In figure 3, faculty B represent s EE faculty B who participated in 2007. Faculty C represents CE faculty C who participated in 2007. Faculty E is new to 2008.

Faculty B: “S3 and S4 minimal, S1, S2, S8 and S6 most.” (4.0)Faculty C: “Students demonstrated good team approach. Some of the students did not

take part much in the discussion.” (4.5)Faculty E: “Lots of give and take, back and forth.” (4.5)

(3h) the ability to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

Faculty B: “Poor people moving in; cost.” (4.0)Faculty C: “Not too much discussion on global and cultural contexts.” (3.5)Faculty E: “Lots of comments about ‘who pays?’” (4.0) (3i) the ability to engage in life-long learning

Faculty B: “More research, where published.” (3.5)Faculty C: “Though the students agree on what needs to be learned, they do not suggest a

plan to retrieve an organize data and evidence.” (3.5)Faculty E: (No comments) (5.0)

(3j ) the knowledge of contemporary issues

Faculty B: “Some talk about Wales, wind, solar, UV on molecules.” (4.0)Faculty C: “Students did not discuss this in much depth. I was not impressed.” (3.5)Faculty E: (No comments) (4.0)

3. Summary of Student Focus Group

A focus group with the same students followed the discussion to determine how students thought that they had gained the professional skills they used to address the issues raised in the scenario, as well as to elicit their perspectives regarding program strengths and areas for improvement. The discussion was taped and then transcribed (see Appendix C for the focus group discussion transcript).Students noted that they felt they’d been taught to consider the broader impacts of an engineering problem. All seemed to feel that the senior design course had them work with real-world problems and, because of that, it was important to consider who was affected by the problem and who would be affected by the solutions. Other than 402, they did not think that ethics was overtly taught in the EE & CE curricula. Some noted that they learned more about ethics in English and Sociology courses. Some felt it wasn’t the responsibility of their departments to teach ethics.4. Faculty comments on the curricular debrief process/procedures

There were none this year – last year’s recommendations/comments from CE faculty, which can be implemented in 09, if the faculty are still interested, were:

To save time during the rating process, faculty could rate curricular debrief transcripts before meeting in person to discuss observations and ratings.

Overall, this new direct measure is a great improvement and complement to the student self reports recorded in the focus group.

V. CTLT Recommendations and Next Steps for 2008-2009

Read and discuss this report with faculty in the assessment cohort and meet with CTLT to discuss recommendations and next steps.

Incorporate focus group feedback into program and curricular improvement. Incorporate activities that teach and assess professional skills into the core course

curriculum (e.g., one required course for freshman to senior years). Have each interested faculty member integrate professional skill-building into

their teaching by using a scenario activity in one course each semester or year. These activities may be informal student discussions during one class period, with time for reflection on the value of the activity or the skills themselves. Or, they may be assignments that ask for written responses to scenarios or hands-on group work.

Continue to strengthen the alignment between professional skills and class activities by discussing current events related to Electrical and Computer Engineering whenever the opportunity arises naturally in class.

Use the 2008 revised rubric more overtly in instruction and as a guide for grading.

Give students the rubric before an assignment to help them learn what is expected

of them, self-evaluate, and evaluate each other on activities that teach and assess

professional skills.

Conduct department-wide rating sessions each year (preceded by norming sessions), and include a wider range of participants (faculty, students, assessment specialists, and professionals in the field).

Meet regularly to identify and implement changes. Solicit faculty reflections on strategies for augmenting class activities to improve student’s professional skills and level of engagement.

VI. ConclusionsABET administrators note that using multiple measures, both direct and indirect, can form a more complete picture of student performance as well as inform program revisions. Therefore, the results of the curricular debrief sessions may be combined with other assessment results to give the Computer Science program a more complete picture of student mastery of certain professional skills. Longitudinal results of curricular debrief sessions, along with other indicators and methods, may be combined to track improvements over the years. This performance shows that previous efforts to address professional skills have helped the students work toward mastery. The curricular debrief sessions and rubric tool can be employed longitudinally to help faculty gauge students’ strengths and weaknesses. Faculty can then focus their efforts by embedding practice lessons on particular skills

more deeply into the curriculum, with core courses, group activities, discussions and assignments

Appendix ACurricular Debrief Scenario and Instructions

Electrical and Computer Engineering DepartmentsCollege of Engineering & Architecture

Scenario and Instructions

Student Instructions:Imagine that you are a team of engineers working together on the issue described in the scenario below. Discuss what your team would need to take into consideration to address the issue. You do not need to find solutions, but try to come to a consensus on what is most important, and agree on one or more approaches. You will have 45 minutes. Scenario:

The largest study ever done on the link between power lines and cancer has been completed – with inconclusive results. Although it was found that children living near overhead power lines have an increased risk of leukemia, the confusing message is that the results, “although statistically significant, may be due to chance.”

The study looked at childhood cancer data in England and Wales from 1962-1995. 29,000 children with cancer were compared with the same number of children without cancer living in comparable districts. Children whose birth address was within 200 meters of an overhead power line had a 70% increased risk of leukemia, and children living 200 to 600 meters away from power lines had a 20% increased risk.

“To put these results in perspective, our study shows that about five of the 400 cases of childhood leukemia every year may be linked to power lines - which is about 1% of cases,” says Gerald Draper at Oxford University, who led the study. “The condition is very rare and people living near power lines should have no cause for concern.”

However, the results are controversial, coming just one month after the major UK Childhood Cancer Study report, which declared that there was no risk to children living these distances away from power lines. To complicate matters, other studies have found a conclusive link between childhood cancer and power lines for those living within 60 meters of an overhead power line.

Adapted from “Large study links power lines to childhood cancer” by Gaia Vince. New Scientist.com, June 2005.

Appendix BElectrical and Computer Engineering Departments

College of Engineering & ArchitectureCurricular Debrief

March 24, 2008Facilitator: Kimberly Green

Transcriber: Tara PetrieNote: Participants are identified as S1, S2, etc. Total number of participants = 9

START OF SESSION1. S1: We have to agree on what?2.3. S8: We have to find out what is important.

4. S2: How we would go about it, I guess.

5. S2: Who wants to start?

6. S1: Who understands exactly what’s being asked?

7. S6: They’re trying to say make a conclusive link between power lines and leukemia. But these statistics are inconclusive, but there was conclusive evidence that within 60 meters there is a definite increased risk of cancer. So I think they’re just wondering if there’s a significant increase in risk by living close to these lines, so they threw out a bunch of statistics and we need to identify what the most important aspect of this problem is.

8. S2: Saving children or having power lines right?

9. S1: What would you consider overhead power lines, the large currents, or the everyday ones across the U.S? I’m talking about the ones you can hear crackling if you walk under them.

10. S5: Yeah, the type of power line is vague.

11. S1: The neighborhood I grew up in, every house there is within 400 meters of a power line.

12. S8: They’re talking about transmission lines, high voltage.

13. S6: They’re talking about the big ones. I heard about those sorts of things growing up.

14. S1: So the other question to ask them, if they’re the big ones, “what other environmental factors may relate to cancer?” If there is no conclusive evidence of the link, what else could contribute?

15. S8: Like power plants.

16. S1: Or maybe they just built power lines over areas that aren’t, I don’t know…

17. S8: Industrial areas.

18. S1: Maybe the stuff they used to make them.

19. S6: I don’t know if it’s isolated, but it’s one study in like, England.

20. S8: The first thing I’d do is try to find studies in different locations.

21. S2: They’re only looking at one factor, the power lines.

22. S6: Don’t they do have different power systems than we do?

23. S8: Yeah different frequencies.

24. S7: It’s low frequency.

25. S1: What about power lines could actually contribute to cancer, because it’s usually just a fundamental glitch in DNA.

26. S7: Radiation, the EMF field…

27. S9: Certain pollutants in the atmosphere when they’re under the voltage they’ll change chemically, and that will cause leukemia. It’s not changing people’s DNA.

28. S1: So it’s not the EMF field, its chemicals reacting to the fields. If that’s the link there’s definitely got to be some other environmental factors. If it’s not just the power lines, there are other pollutants.

29. S8: Are you talking about pollutants or other things in the air?

30. S9: No, I think it would be pollutants, like CFC’s.

31. S1: So, we’d have to find studies about something out in the middle of nowhere.

32. S6: I think one of the last sentences was, “to complicate matters, other studies have found a direct connection between power lines and childhood cancer.”

33. S8: Isn’t it kind of hard to live within 60 meters of a transition line? They’re usually 30 meters high.

34. S6: I don’t know.

35. S5: In Wales, they don’t have a lot of land mass; they might just build stuff underneath without regard of what might happen.

36. S6: You’d have to have kids sleeping right under the power lines.

37. S2: These are all risks, though. Doesn’t say anything about cases. They say it’s linked, but…

38. S1: Also, look at the second paragraph where it talks about the studies of Wales where it talks about birth address within 200 meters. So it’s like children living there. If their birth address is there it doesn’t mean their entire childhood was there.

39. S6: Yeah, that is a good point; they need to expand on that.

40. S8: So we have to come up with 1 or more approaches to the problem.

41. S8: The way I’d approach it is more accurate research, expanded studies.

42. S6: Especially in that one little area.

43. S8: I don’t think it’s worth shutting down the power grid at this point.

44. S9: What about just informing the public?

45. S8: Send this to the newspaper.

46. S2: We’re only talking 200 to 600 meters, that’s not a long difference.

47. S1: If you watch the news, everything gets sensationalized, so it might not be a good idea.

48. S5: Anyone near power lines will think they have cancer when they get sick, hysteria.

49. S6: So we could think about what would happen if there was conclusive evidence that power lines cause cancer, or what if the link wasn’t…

50. S8: Underground transmission lines, you could bury all of them. It’s really expensive though.

51. S2: You could just re-route them.

52. S8: Yeah, but if they go thru the city, it will be hard to find how to get them further away…

53. S2: Put them higher?

54. S1: Yeah, but if the cancer is caused by what is in the air, that air is more susceptible.

55. S1: I don’t think there’s enough information.

56. S2: I don’t see this scenario as related to engineers as much as like, doctors.

FACILITATOR: Who are all of the stakeholders you can think of?

57. S1: Well parents, landowners, power companies. Studies that show very, very small risk and aren’t conclusive are not worth changing everything for.

58. S6: Well, say like they were conclusive. Should the government step in or should the private owners?

59. S1: If there was a study showing 100% that there’s a direct link between a closeness to power lines and leukemia, I think the market would fix itself real quick. The property values would drop, the problem would be there would be poor people moving in.

60. S8: That wouldn’t affect utility operations at all.

61. S1: But it would affect a lot of other things.

62. S8: Somebody would have to intervene, and say, “Hey, we need to bury the lines or run them up lower voltage in certain areas.”

63. S1: Aren’t these publically owned, especially in a place like Wales?

64. S6: I think in Wales it is.

65. S1: So where is the money coming from to fix these things?

66. S8: You have to raise the bills to make changes, just like anything these days, kind of like wind generation; create a false demand by doing a government mandate.

67. S1: I’d also have to ask, in that study in 1962-1995, how many years is that? How many years is that, 30,000 children got cancer? And this is leukemia? I believe that the money you’d invest in leukemia research would be less than having to change infrastructure.

68. S6: What about the adults? Can you conduct studies on adults, like are you able to get anything after a particular age?

69. S5: Adults would have a higher immune system to toxins.

70. S1: Leukemia is usually more a childhood disease; it hits you early on.

71. S1: Let’s list the things most important to this issue, what would you guys say would be the most important things: accuracy of study, expanded studies?

72. S1: And if there is a direct link found, what’s the next most important thing to consider?

73. S1: I’d say deciding whether to change infrastructure or keep it. Would it be worth the cost, or would the money better be spent elsewhere?

74. S8: You need to understand different approaches, because there are probably many different ways to change the system.

75. S1: Any ideas?

76. S8: Well, if it’s caused by high voltage, maybe lower voltages, a threshold that didn’t cause the reaction. But then you take all sorts of losses.

77. S1: Don’t you have to change what they’re connected to?

78. S8: No, you could just have a transformer…

79. S5: You’d have more losses; you’d have to have parallel systems, which are more EMF, which could cause more toxins. If people would conserve, that could be good; people might make steps to do that for a cause.

80. S1: Maybe figuring out what toxins are reacting in the first place.

81. S6: What about buying out the space of this area, pay the people for their home worth?

82. S1: So let’s think about this, 600 meters squared. How much is land there? It’s a good idea, but expensive as hell.

83. S6: It would be more expensive to do an underground thing.

84. S1: They could re-zone the area.

85. S2: It’s people’s decision between electricity, or their kids maybe get leukemia.

86. S8: It’s not a hard decision for most parents.

87. S1: But then once those people move out, some people move in and then you got a whole different social problem.

88. S1: Better filtering systems inside the homes.

89. S6: What about future placements of power lines, things like that? Well obviously they’d be smarter with property.

90. S1: So if a rule said new developing had to be so far away from power lines…

91. S6: In the future, what about implementing underground power lines?

92. S1: Imagine… Don’t the high power lines transmit power really long distances?

93. S8: Or just in metro areas it could be underground. That’s the way people are going with distribution and transmission not so much.

94. S2: I don’t know why this is focused so much on children.

95. S1: Adults aren’t affected by this kind of cancer as much.

96. S8: Is leukemia a type of cancer?

97. S9: Blood cancer, T-cells and…

98. FACILITATOR: So what stakeholders would your group involve?

99. S2: Good question.

100. S1: Power companies, people living within 1,000 feet of the lines, and the landowners.

101. S5: If you force the power companies to recognize this, they’ll charge the people. They have controlled areas. The bottom line is that if something is done it trickles down to the public to pay for it.

102. S1: That’s true.

103. S1: So pretty much we’re going with everyone?

104. S8: Except for people who don’t have power.

105. S6: You could have some solar panels, some wind generators.

106. S8: What if you have a wind generator and live under a power line.

107. S1: And it doesn’t blow the toxins away…

108. S8: Yeah, a vortex of cancer.

109. S4: Underground is quite expensive. If there could be a new approach to either lower line, and then we can stay the same with procedure in order to cover the power line and also to consume less power. That’s the only way I can think of.

110. S1: We’re thinking about changing things and spending massive amounts of money, and we’re talking about 1% of people, and that’s inconclusive. I think we should find more ways to fight leukemia… S1% of all leukemia cases could be linked.

111. S6: Well this study is weird because 5 of every 400 cases… How many of those are cases of children living near power lines? So if you’re trying to make a link between this.

112. S1: Their study, if you say “linked” power lines… Even if they have a risk, and they were about to get leukemia anyways they could blame it on power lines.

113. S6: It goes back to our expanded study.

114. S8: I guess scientific researchers would be another stakeholder.

115. S1: They need jobs too, right?

116. S1: Also, where were these studies published, a referenced journal?

117. S8: NewScience.com, I don’t see a volume number.

118. S1: Also, this study takes place 1962-1995, and we all know the 1960’s people put stuff into the air. I think in the 1990s some of the problems were banned. I’d like to see a study about chemicals and what exactly reacts with the power lines. I don’t see how those frequencies can really be a problem.

119. S9: Yeah, they seem too low, it’s only when you get up to UV levels where you see changes in molecular levels, a direct link.

120. S6: That’s a good point. It seems that they had a hard time collecting data. You cannot start documenting people, you have to go off of what they have, and it might be inaccurate. Getting down to the details of the science would be good.

121. S1: Just having a correlation does not imply there is a causal effect. I don’t know. I’d like to see something a lot better documented. They’re looking at people who got cancer and seeing if they live by power lines. I’m betting that people who live by them are living there for economic reasons and maybe they’re exposed to other things. Maybe their diet is bad and other things.

122. S8: I’d have to keep going back to that. We all agree on that. More research.

123. S2: That’s what professors do, more research.

END OF SESSION

Appendix CElectrical and Computer Engineering Departments

College of Engineering & ArchitectureFocus Group Transcript

March 24, 2008Facilitator: Kimberly Green

Transcriber: Tara Petrie

Note: Participants were identified as S1, S2, etc. Number of student participants = 9.124. FACILITATOR: How has the knowledge or skills you’ve gained from the WSU

engineering program influenced your approach to the issues raised in this scenario?

125. S2: Globalized our ideas; helped us see where the location or geographic location is before we start on the engineering part.

126. S6: Looking at broader impacts in terms of who is affected. That’s what has been ingrained in my head. Just think of how many people this affects and what could be the possible outcome, or what could happen to some of these people if these changes or if conclusive evidence was found.

127. S8: From an engineering education perspective, we’ve learned how to problem solve through the years. Just taking data and figuring out what it means, not just taking it at face value.

128. S2: Also looking at the importance of the data, but which part is more important to look at. Take some, toss the rest.

129. S1: I think they’ve ingrained in the statistics class; that statistics can be used for anything you want them to be used for, and that seems to be the case in this scenario.

130. S6: That relates to understanding the problem and what is being asked of us.

131. S1: One thing I’ve learned very well at this university is to take very vague information and go with it.

132. FACILITATOR: Do you think the WSU engineering program has helped you address real world situations like this one?

133. S8: Of course.

134. S2: Yes.

135. FACILITATOR: So why is that?

136. S1: On our proposal, we had to have a section on society, impacts, and concerns.

137. S8: In design class, real-world problems are stressed with each one of our design projects, not just design itself, but who it will impact. But in general I think the education of any 4-year degree you have a different way of looking at things in general. You like to take in more information to solve a problem. Real world problems aren’t black and white and you have to look at the details, there aren’t necessarily right or wrong answers, not with this problem or other problems.

138. S2: The right answer is that it depends.

139. FACILITATOR: What knowledge or skills from outside the department did you use to address this scenario (current events, non-engineering courses, life events)?

140. S8: (Name Omitted) brought some stuff from Sociology 101. The SES of people, for instance, takes that into account.

141. S1: There is a website where they have impacts on the population.

142. S8: Did someone from the university tell you about slashdoc?

143. S6: I guess. In English we talk about ethics and how those affect what is going on in the world, and you can think about that in relation to your senior design project, and with this as well. 402 introduced and stresses on ethics and explores that.

144. S2: I was going to say that sociology class or research or whatever. This research hasn’t been done, and so it would help to evaluate this research.

145. FACILITATOR: What are some ethical responsibilities that apply to your profession?

146. S8: Public safety. I don’t want to design anything that’s too powerful for people.

147. S1: Unless you’re making a million dollars. I’m kidding, but that seems to be the trend with a lot of companies.

148. S5: A lot of initiatives have been passed. People don’t know what or why they’re voting. So it’s important for engineers to understand issues behind it and do what they’re going to do to help, or kind of fall under that. I’ve been talking about this all morning; they’re needing either to conserve or build a greener generation in Washington State. So going in, engineers need to understand what’s on the minds of people because ultimately they’re the ones that calls the shots. A lot of companies have tried to step up and put wind farms in, build generators, etc. So it’s kind of counter-productive in a sense, but it’s not because it falls under green energy. There is really no solution right now, but they keep looking into the future and trying to do more research, something that can finally be a solution that the people want.

149. S6: It’s about improving living standards for today as well as the future and we should strive for that.

150. FACILITATOR: So did you ever discuss ethical issues in a WSU engineering course?

151. S1: No, just when we’re told to. In classes we’ll have 5 minutes to talk about societal and ethical issues because we have to and then it’s done.

152. S5: Computers and Society.

153. S1: But that was mainly Bob ranting.

154. S5: So yes we listen to him rant and rave about stuff. It’s interesting stuff, but…

155. S1: It’s also an entirely optional class. In four engineering courses, the only one we talked about it in was senior design. We were just to put that in a proposal and talk about it.

156. S8: I don’t remember discussing it at all. And then when I was studying for the ethical aspect of the engineering test, I had to study for it.

157. S6: Yes, that’s funny because I haven’t taken the computer and society, and our English 402 professor keeps telling us we should have already taken an ethics course.

158. FACILITATOR: So you don’t spend time on it?

159. S1: Well, but there are different kinds of ethics, like insider trading, and then ethical implications of making products.

160. S2: It’s not directly related to engineering, but the diversity classes should help you make those links. But they don’t say it’s directly related to engineering.

161. S6: Yeah, maybe cut out one of these other electives and install an engineering ethics course.

162. S1: So cut out power lines.

163. FACILITATOR: How have discussions with faculty made you aware of societal or global issues?

164. S5: In our design projects, we’ve talked to our faculty mentor and he’s definitely brought this up. Our team is dealing primarily with an ethical thing. This problem was brought up because people wanted more green energy. And by doing so, we can eventually get to the point where we can get to a real solution, rather than patchwork. What are engineers going to focus on later on?

165. S1: The senior projects don’t have direct impacts on society…

166. S2: Ours does; we’re researching how high we can go with the frequencies before it’s going to be dangerous. So that’s societal, but other than that…

167. S1: They haven’t made us less aware either. We’re taught to make things better, faster. When you’re told to design something, your project manager isn’t going to listen to us talking about how to make it safer, cheaper, etc. Which is why they don’t focus on ethics because that’s what business people need to do more. We need ethics courses because it doesn’t fall in our ethical job description.

168. S8: I think it does, engineers need to think about that.

169. S1: They do. But really, how often?

170. S8: An example I think of, a woman I worked with, her previous company made surge protectors. She was an electrical engineering, a test engineer; she found out that it starts fires. 1 in every 1,000 will start a fire. She told the boss. The boss told her not to say anything about it. And she ended up quitting her job because she couldn’t ethically do that. And I think that’s the right choice. If you have knowledge something could hurt someone, you have a responsibility to tell someone about it. I don’t know if you can teach that to someone in school, that’s more morality than ethics.

171. S1: It’s not that easy, because that company probably just hired someone that wouldn’t say anything and life goes on.

172. FACILITATOR: What are three ways your department could do a better job with these issues?

173. S1: I don’t think it’s their responsibility. Perhaps just a course, have courses on ethics.

174. S1: Having professors who are trying to teach logic, and you haven’t even talked about ethics; it’s not worth anyone’s time. Have a class that examines all of these issues.

175. S8: It’s hard to integrate it, systems, signals, and ethics.

176. S1: Yeah, that would be like an afterthought so we can pass ABET.

177. S2: When you’re trying to solve a problem and people talk ethics everyone zones out and comes back in.

178. FACILITATOR: Have your engineering professors discussed long-term career and educational goals for people in your profession?

179. S5: There was a class. I’ve talked to them outside of class and that’s always the topic. They’re doing their job. It’s not an in-class presentation.

(Most of them: No)180. S1: You have to catch them during office hours. I did have one professor who was

really good about that; he talked to us specifically about how to apply to our careers down the line. It wasn’t part of the class, it was whatever he was talking about he relates to what is done with it in the real world.

181. S2: There were maybe a couple of professors who have a personal in-depth conversation with you.

182. S2: Some would bring in presenters from the army and try to relate it.

183. S6: I discuss these sorts of things with the instructor I T.A. for. It’s harder to make time to sit down and talk about stuff like that. They’re busy; we’re busy.

184. S2: They lack personality, though, so it’s hard to talk to them. A lot of them are…

185. S1: Even the ones I did talk to, it’s a professor you’ve had a few times, you just mention something and they’ll say, “what are you doing, where are you interviewing, where are you applying?” First three years, not so much. At the beginning, you’re just thinking about goals in a very abstract way.

186. S6: Overall, I think the professors have been more approachable as I matriculated; they know who you are so it wouldn’t be that awkward to ask for help or do you a favor.

END OF SESSION

Appendix HEE Curriculum Presentation to IAB

electrical engineering assessment reportschneidj/assessment/annual… · web viewelectrical...

Documents