abet self-study report - university of virginiapeople.virginia.edu/~lrh8t/ee undergrad program/ee...

ABET Self-Study Report

for the

Electrical Engineering Program

at the

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, Virginia

June 30, 2010

CONFIDENTIAL

The information supplied in this Self-Study Report is for the confidential use of ABET and its authorized agents, and will not be disclosed without authorization of the institution concerned, except for summary data not identifiable to a specific institution.

Table of Contents

BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................................3

CRITERION 1. STUDENTS .......................................................................................................8

CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES............................................24

CRITERION 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES.............................................................................32

CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT...............................................................54

CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM ..............................................................................................72

CRITERION 6. FACULTY .......................................................................................................86

CRITERION 7. FACILITIES ...................................................................................................95

CRITERION 8. SUPPORT......................................................................................................100

CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA ...............................................................................102

APPENDIX A. COURSE SYLLABI.....................................................................................103

APPENDIX B. RESUMES.....................................................................................................103

APPENDIX D. INSTITUTIONAL APPENDIX ..................................................................103

APPENDIX C. LABORATORY EQUIPMENT..................................................................104

3

Self-Study Report

Electrical Engineering Bachelor of Science


BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. Contact information

ECE Undergrad Committee Chair ECE Department Chair Zongli Lin Charles L. Brown Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering 351 McCormick Road P.O. Box 400743 University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22904-4743 Tel: (434) 924 6342 Fax: (434) 924 8818 E-mail: [email protected]

Lloyd Harriott Charles L. Brown Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering 351 McCormick Road PO Box 400743 University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22904-4743 Tel: (434) 243-5580 Fax: (434) 924-8818 E-mail [email protected]

B. Program History

The electrical engineering undergraduate program at the University of Virginia has been accredited by EAC of ABET, Inc. since 1936.

C. Options There are no formally defined options or tracks. Instead, the program provides foundations across the spectrum and allows students to choose their electives to fit their needs and interests. As such, some students concentrate in digital systems, some in microelectronics, some in communications, some in controls. Others choose to take a variety of elective courses across the discipline.

4

D. Organizational Structure

The organizational chart for the upper administration for the University (above the School of Engineering) is shown in Figure 1. The School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS) is one of the Academic Units in Figure 1; the SEAS organizational chart is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1. Organizational Chart of Upper Administration at the University of Virginia

5

E. Program Delivery Modes The electrical engineering program is offered in the “day mode” only, although some laboratory sections are scheduled in the evening. Virtually all of our students are enrolled for full-time study. Occasionally one of our “mezzanine” courses that are open to undergraduates as well as graduate students is offered over our statewide engineering satellite transmission facility. Likewise, our students can occasionally enroll in similar-level courses offered by other engineering schools in the state. Since the courses offered in this network are intended for graduate students, they are unlikely to count as anything other than electives for students in the undergraduate computer engineering program.

F. Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) and the Actions taken to Address them

Criterion 5 Faculty. The need for more faculty members was noted in the final statement from our ABET review in 2004. Since that time, the department has addressed that need by hiring six new full time tenure-

Figure 2 Organizational chart for SEAS (School of Engineering and Applied Science)

6

tenure track faculty members. This has enabled us to expand the offerings of upper level elective courses. Joe C. Campbell: Prof. Campbell received his B.S. Degree in Physics for the University of Texas at Austin in 1969, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1971 and 1973, respectively. From 1974 to 1976 he was employed by Texas Instruments where he worked on integrated optics. In 1976 he joined the staff of AT&T Bell Laboratories in Holmdel, New Jersey. In the Crawford Hill Laboratory he worked on a variety of optoelectronic devices including semiconductor lasers, optical modulators, waveguide switches, photonic integrated circuits, and photodetectors with emphasis on high-speed avalanche photodiodes for high-bit-rate lightwave systems. In January of 1989 he joined the faculty of the University of Texas at Austin as Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Cockrell Family Regents Chair in Engineering. He joined the ECE department at UVA in January 2006 as the Lucien Carr III Professor. At present he is actively involved in Si-based optoelectronics, high-speed, low-noise avalanche photodiodes, GaN ultraviolet photodetectors, and quantum-dot IR imaging. Professor Campbell is a Fellow of IEEE and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. Toby Berger: Professor Berger holds a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Yale University and master’s and doctoral degrees in applied mathematics from Harvard University. He had a distinguished career at Cornell University where he was a chaired professor in ECE. He served on the Cornell faculty from 1968-2005. Professor Berger joined the ECE faculty at the University of Virginia in January 2006. He is a fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a member of the Governing Board and a past president of the IEEE Information Theory Group, and a past editor-in-chief of the IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Society for Engineering Education, Sigma Xi, and Tau Beta Pi. Professor Berger was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 2006. He was also awarded Leon K. Kirchmayer Graduate Teaching Award “for sustained excellence in graduate education and research in information theory” by the IEEE.

Archie Holmes: Archie received his BSEE degree from University of Texas at Austin in 1991 and earned MSEE and PhD degrees from University of California at Santa Barbara in 1992 and 1997 respectively. He then joined the University of Texas at Austin as an Assistant Professor (1997) and was promoted to Associate Professor with tenure in 2002. He joined the ECE department at UVA in January, 2007 as a Full Professor with tenure. Professor Holmes area of research interest is in crystal growth of III-V compound semiconductors and design and fabrication of optoelectronic devices.

Mool Gupta: Mool joined the electrical and computer engineering faculty in February, 2005 as the Langly Professor in the area of Quantum/Molecular Materials Design for Sensors. His technical area of interest is in photonics and lasers.

7

Benton Calhoun: Ben Calhoun received his BSEE degree from University of Virginia in 2000 and PhD in Electrical Engineering from M.I.T in December 2005. He joined the ECE department at UVA in January of 2006 as an assistant professor. Ben Calhoun’s research interests include low power digital circuit design, sub-threshold digital circuits, SRAM design for end-of-the-roadmap silicon, variation tolerant circuit design methodologies, low power mixed signal design, and medical applications for low energy electronics.

Avik Ghosh: Professor Ghosh received his MS degree from IIT, Kanpur, India in 1994 and a PhD (physics) from Ohio State University in 1999. He joined Purdue in 1999 as a Postdoctoral Fellow and later (2002) as a Principle Research Scientist. He joined the ECE department at UVA in August 2005 as an Assistant Professor. His main research interests are in computational nanoelectronics and transport modeling. Professor Ghosh was promoted to Associate Professor with tenure effective in August of 2010.

Criterion 7 Institutional Support and Financial Resources

The need for more staff support was noted in the final statement from our ABET review in 2004. Since that time, the department has added two technical staff members and one clerical staff member to support the needs of the faculty. The department has also hired work-study students for routine jobs such as copying and filing. Further, the financial base for the department has been strengthened by the Charles L. Brown endowment. Endowment proceeds have been primarily used for graduate fellowships. Institutional support for teaching labs and equipment has been strong totaling in excess of $500k over the time since our last ABET review. Substantial startup funds have also supported the hiring of the new faculty (nearly $4M over this period). Department space for research labs has expanded with the opening of Wilsdorf Hall and will expand again when Rice Hall opens in Fall 2011.

8

CRITERION 1. STUDENTS

Introduction to the University Data Systems In the ensuing discussion about students and their records, it will be helpful to have some exposition of the University data management systems and structures and documents, their functions, and their abbreviations.

• The Student Information System (the "SIS"): The Student Information System ("SIS") is the system of record for student data. This includes academic, financial, and personal data. The SIS is also linked to our admissions processes, course registration, academic standards/regulations, and the like. The SIS is a highly secure system, and it is the UVa implementation of the popular PeopleSoft product deployed by over 800 institutions across the country and around the world.

• UVa Collab ("Collab"): The UVa Collab ("Collab") is the University's course management and collaboration system. UVa Collab is a local implementation of the web-based course and collaboration environment powered by the Sakai community. UVa students, staff, and faculty use Collab for course management, collaboration on coursework or research projects, to foster interest groups (example: SIS users groups), and other collaboration functions.

• Oracle Discoverer ("Discoverer"): Oracle Discoverer ("Discoverer") is the University's reporting environment. Discoverer queries probe the SIS for the requested information. Much of the data presented in this document is derived from Discoverer queries designed expressly for the purpose of producing this ABET self-study.

• Institutional Assessment and Studies ("IAAS"): The Office of Institutional Assessment and Studies ("IAAS") conducts institutional research and supports assessment of the University of Virginia. IAAS are (among other areas of expertise) Discoverer power users who are charged with maintaining official University statistics as reported to the public, accreditation agencies, and others. IAAS is also the source of much of the data contained in this document. The IAAS "Data Digest" contains a tremendous amount of public information about our programs, students, and graduates.

• The Undergraduate Record ("The Record"): The Undergraduate Record ("The Record") is the University's official compilation of policies, regulations, and guidelines for the Undergraduate programs at the University. The Record is published by the Office of the University Registrar and is available exclusively online starting with the 2009-2010 edition. Updates to the Record can be submitted to the Registrar at any time, although the online version of the Record is updated only once per year (at the start of the academic year).

9

A. Student Admission A.1 Admission to the University. The University has recently begun using the online Common Application (the "Common App") for all first-year applicants, and the common app is linked to our system of record for student records. Therefore all applicants to the University use the Common App, with information coupled to the SIS, to submit their credentials for evaluation. The University recently stopped using "early decision", and in the 2009-2010 admissions cycle we received in excess of 23,000 applications.

The undergraduate admissions function is handled centrally for the University by the Office of Undergraduate Admission, with limited input from the Schools. The admissions staff read each application holistically, including factors such as test scores, school reports, high school transcript, recommendation letters, and the application essays. The overall acceptance rate for the University tends to be between 30-40% overall, slightly higher for in-state students and slightly lower for out-of-state students. As a state institution, the University seeks to maintain a balance in its undergraduate population, as mandated by the state legislature, of 2/3 in-state and 1/3 out-of-state students. Table 1-1 shows admissions data for the past 5 years, including a 50% increase in applications over that span. The jump in applications for students entering in Fall 2009 (who submitted applications in Fall 2008/Spring 2009) coincides with the University's transition to the CommonApp, which makes it easier for students to apply. Students admitted to the University are offered admission directly to one of the undergraduate Schools.

The data in Table 1-2 represent admissions standards for first-time, first-year undergraduates to SEAS as a whole. It is quite difficult to break this data out by department, although we have no reason to suspect that the various departments in SEAS demonstrate any appreciable differences. Note that the University does not track ACT scores, and rather focuses on SAT scores. Rather than list the absolute minimum SAT score, we have listed the 10th percentile score. An average SAT score above 1350 places UVa among elite American universities for in-coming student credentials. We note that the recent national trend of not ranking high school graduates persists in our admissions data as well, with more than half of in-coming students arriving from high schools with no formal ranking system (by some reports, more than half of US high schools no longer rank their students).

Table 1-1. Application, offer, and acceptance data for SEAS first-time, first-year students applying for admission in the Fall semester of the year shown.

Year Applications Received

Offers Made Offer Rate (%) Offers Accepted Yield Rate (%)

2009 3202 1343 42 584 43

2008 2595 1412 54 582 41

2007 2442 1187 49 559 47

2006 2123 1192 56 544 46

2005 2066 1159 56 503 43

(Source: UVa Data Digest, IAAS)

10

Table 1-2. History of admissions standards for SEAS freshmen for past five years.

Composite SAT Percentile Class Rank in High School (number of students in each category)

Academic Year

Min. (10th percentile)

Avg. Top 1/10th

Second 1/10th

Second 1/5th

Bottom 3/5th

Unranked

Number of New Students Enrolled

2009 1180 1367 248 23 5 2 306 584

2008 1190 1354 228 28 1 0 325 582

2007 1170 1351 234 19 8 1 297 559

2006 1170 1353 264 24 5 0 251 544

2005 1170 1349 215 28 6 1 253 503


A.2 New Student Orientation and Advising. In conjunction with the Office of Orientation and New Student Programs (a unit of the Office of the Dean of Students), SEAS conducts summer orientation sessions for in-coming students, both first-year admits and transfer students. The social purpose of orientation is to allow students to meet each other and begin to build a cohort identity. The administrative purpose is to enable students to explore the residence halls, the bookstore and library, the financial aid office, and other University resources. The academic purpose is for students to meet with their advisor and ensure that their first-semester registration is appropriate and places them in a strong position to achieve academic success in their first semester. At orientation, the Undergraduate Dean also reviews SEAS and University policies and procedures, and gives an overview of University academic and personal support services (see also Section B.3).

The key academic dimensions of orientation are as follows. For first-time, first-year students, the key conversation revolves around their advanced standing (if any) and Fall course registration. Students work closely with their advisor and the Undergraduate Dean's office to ensure that their advanced standing is accurately reflected on their SIS record, and that their course selection is consistent with their academic preparation. For transfer students, the advisors and the Undergraduate Dean's office work closely with the student and their transcripts from other institutions to ensure that their transfer credit evaluation is done in an accurate and timely way. In addition, we develop a transition schedule which allows the student to quickly become aligned with the "standard" schedule for their discipline. For students whose first language is not English, we administer a language diagnostics exam which allows us to assess a student's proficiency in English reading, comprehension, and writing, and then to offer remedial language services as appropriate.

11

A.3 Admission to a SEAS Major. In-coming students entering the Engineering School are classified as "Undeclared", meaning that they are engineering students who have not yet been admitted to a major. At the end of the first year, students apply to the major of their choice, and entrance into each major is determined based upon student academic credentials (grades from both first and second semesters), an essay which describes the student's passion for their intended major and any related experiences (e.g., summer internships) which ignited that interest, diversity broadly defined, and the capacity of each major to accommodate new students due to limitations in laboratory space or faculty size. The capacity limitations are clearly explained to students as they go through the major application process, and we endeavor to make the entire process as transparent as possible to students. Students are asked to rank their preference of majors from first to fourth. In 2009 (the most recent year for which such data is available), 90% of SEAS first-year students were admitted to their first-choice major, and 98% were admitted to either their first- or second- choice major. The remaining students (offered placement in either their third- or fourth-choice major) generally had quite poor academic credentials, and many eventually transferred from SEAS to the College of Arts and Sciences. Biomedical Engineering historically has had the lowest acceptance rate, typically about 70%, and this stems largely from the fact that they remain a relatively new and still-growing program, and they are somewhat limited on laboratory space required to serve a larger number of students. Many SEAS programs, including computer engineering and electrical engineering, routinely have a 100% acceptance rate.

A.4 The Rodman Scholars Program The Rodman scholars program is the honors program in SEAS. Potential Rodman scholars are identified at the University admission phase, and the majority of Rodmans are invited to the program before matriculation at the University. Students offered Rodman status at the admissions stage represent the top few percent of applicants to SEAS. Students already at UVa are invited to apply to the Rodman program after their first semester, and selection is based upon academic achievements in that first semester. Rodmans enjoy several perks including some priority registration, preferential housing with other scholars (from both SEAS and the College), and special Rodman sections of several key courses. In addition, the Rodman program is in the midst of a transition to offering an international experience to every Rodman as part of the program. A GPA of 3.0 is required to remain in the Rodman program.

B. Evaluating Student Performance B.1 Registration Policies and Control. Student academic success is closely tied to their registration in an appropriate course load and an appropriate set of courses. The normal undergraduate course load is 15-18 graded credit hours, and both advisor and Dean's office approval are required for students wishing to register for fewer than 15 or more than 19 credits. Because SEAS degrees require 128 credits for graduation, 15 credit hours is the minimum requirement for graduation in eight semesters. Students construct their schedule in consultation with their academic advisor, but are prevented for actually registering for courses using the SIS until their advisor removes their "registration hold". The "hold" is an electronic checkpoint in the SIS which is only removed by the advisor after the consultation session with the student.

12

Equally important as the credit load is the specific set of courses for which the student registers. This is most acutely important for students in their first two semesters, when their record of advanced standing can have a significant impact on their course registration. SEAS has a specific set of qualifications for students, available through the Registrar's website in the Undergraduate Record, which provides a mapping from AP and IB credentials to the course credit earned for those credentials. The most common forms of advanced standing are for calculus and the sciences; our experience has been that enrolling students in the correct calculus course--"correct" meaning the course which matches their qualifications (AP scores), their actual preparation, and their confidence level--is perhaps the most important academic decision in the first two semesters. We ensure that students enroll in the correct calculus course by considering their high school performance in calculus, their AP scores, their score on the SEAS Calculus placement and/or diagnostic exams, and we have a conversation with the student to assess their level of confidence in the material. The most important of these conversations occurs during summer orientation, when the student registers for the Fall semester courses. During the first two weeks of the Fall semester, students do have the option to change their calculus registration. Every year we have a handful of students alter their registration--usually to step down from a higher-level calculus course to a lower one.

B.1 Academic Performance. Once students are registered for an appropriate set of courses, their academic performance is quantified in several ways. First, there is all the graded work submitted for each class in which the student is enrolled. This can take the form of homework, exams, laboratory reports, quizzes, projects, and the like. In all cases, it is the responsibility of the faculty member teaching the class, along with the appropriate group of teaching assistants, to evaluate student performance according to accepted standards appropriate for the course and the type of assignment. The grading criteria, weighting, and other details are listed on the course syllabus. Students whose academic performance is not particularly strong will be engaged by the instructor, and their performance will be discussed. Faculty members often alert the Undergraduate Dean's office, and the standard response is to request information from the student's other instructors to determine whether the academic problems are confined to a single course, or if they represent a much broader academic problem. If the problem is confined to a single course, the instructor of that course will work with the student on improving the grade. If the student's academic problems are observed in most/all of their classes, the Undergraduate Dean will intervene and work with the student to address the source of the problem (see also Section B.3)

B.2 Non-Academic Performance. A second form of performance evaluation is coupled to our student monitoring approach. Student performance also includes regular attendance of class, regular submission of work, and overall cooperation with and participation in the academic enterprise. If students do not perform adequately, each faculty member is charged with working to understand the source of the student's problems. Our SEAS-wide strategy for intervention in such cases is that the faculty member will alert the Undergraduate Dean's office about the student, and the Undergraduate Dean's office will inquire with the student's other instructors about his/her attendance/performance in other classes. Once again, if the problem is confined to a single course, the course instructor works with the student on strategies for engagement and

13

success. If, however, the problem spans across most/all of the student's courses, then the Undergraduate Dean will meet with the student to discuss the underlying source of the difficulties (see also Section B.3).

B.3 Intervention and Student Support Services. Students identified as having significant academic or non-academic performance issues are directed to support resources appropriate for their situation.

• Academic Support Services. Within SEAS, we offer free tutoring in specific courses, including the core subjects of physics, chemistry and calculus. In addition, our APMA program runs frequent drop-in office hours during which TA's are available for all manner of help with APMA subjects. SEAS also offers time management and study skills workshops and courses, including the four-part seminar series "Sailing Through SEAS" (offered for the first time in Fall 2009 through our Center for Engineering Career Development). This series focuses on study habits, and general strategies for academic success.

• Personal Support Services. Students in need of non-academic support have several options as well. Students with specific learning needs, such as ADHD or Asberger's, are directed to the University's Learning Needs Evaluation Center (LNEC). LNEC staff work with the students on evaluating their needs and suggesting academic accommodations for students. These accommodations typically fall into categories relating to time allowed for completion of an exam/assignment, or to the environment in which the work is completed (example: taking an exam in a quiet, secluded location). For students in need of psychological support, the University's student health system offers Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) as an option. CAPS does everything from mental health crisis intervention, to support in times of trauma (example: death of a family member), to referrals to health care providers within the local community. In all cases, CAPS serves the student population with support and counseling, and is a key source of information for how we deal with academic problems stemming from mental health issues (example: a severely depressed student who fails all his/her courses). Finally, the Office of the Dean of Students (ODOS) offers other support services including specific services and programs for various student groups (examples: Asian/Asian Pacific American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Muslim, International, LGBT, student with children, etc.). In addition, ODOS administers the Center for Alcohol and Substance Education (CASE) and the office of Fraternity and Sorority Life.

C. Advising Students C.1 First-Year Advising. Students matriculate into the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University as "undeclared" students. First contact between students and advisors occurs during summer orientation, organized in SEAS in conjunction with the University Office of Orientation and New Student Programs. These two-day events (there are seven of them throughout the summer) provide students with ample time to explore the University, begin to create a social network, and meet with their academic advisors. The advising model for first-year students employs faculty from all departments, each advising 10-15 students in the first

14

year. This model requires 50-60 advisors for the first-year class, and therefore engages well over 1/3 of the SEAS faculty in first-year advising. First-year advising begins during summer orientation, at which time the students and faculty collaborate on course registration for their Fall semester. Students and advisors meet again in late October to discuss registration for the Spring semester. Our advising goals for each student are: (i) to enroll in an appropriate set of courses for each semester, based upon the student's background, interests, and advanced standing; (ii) to foster a relationship with a faculty member who can serve as a valuable resource as the student navigates his/her first year at the University.

C.2 Peer Advising. Students are also assigned an upper-division peer advisor whose role is to be an accessible, supportive resource for new students. Each first-year student is assigned a peer advisor, and each peer advisor has at most 6-8 first-year advisees. The peer advising program is managed through the Engineering Student Council, which organizes the peer advisors, assigns them to in-coming students, and provides mechanisms for contact between advisors and advisees (example: an activities fair which showcases the extracurricular opportunities available to SEAS students). In addition, the Center for Diversity in Engineering also runs a more targeted peer advising program for minority students (see also Section L of the Institutional Appendix.)

C.3 In-Major Advising. At the end of the first year, students apply to their major in SEAS. Around April 1, students are assigned a new advisor in their desired major, and that new advisor will help the student select courses for the Fall semester. Once students are accepted into their major, they are assigned a permanent major advisor who serves that student until graduation. Advising meetings occur at least once per semester for course scheduling, but occur more often for other advising issues including planning for second majors, minors, study abroad experiences, undergraduate research opportunities, etc. Students who declare a second major (whether inside engineering or not) are also assigned an advisor in that second major. The major advisor is charged with direct oversight of the student progress through the curriculum. At least once per semester, each students meets with their advisor to review their past performance and progress through the curriculum, as well as to schedule classes for the following semester. Our graduation rate (four-year rate: 80-85%) is well ahead of the national average, and this metric supports that notion that in general students receive quality advice about their progress toward the degree.

C.4 Career Advising. Career advising and support for job searching is achieved centrally through our Center for Engineering Career Development, a dedicated career office housed in the engineering school. The staff of the Career Center support students with resume critiques and interview skills workshops, by arranging two annual career fairs, and by fostering healthy relationships with local, regional, and national companies which hire SEAS graduates. The Center also provides students with information on industry trends, the job market, and career options with majors. The Center provides extensive resources to employers wishing to recruit UVa engineers, including interview facilities, job/internship postings, and a recruiter-in-residence program. The goal is to develop on-going relationships among students, faculty, and potential employers. During the 2008-2009 academic year (the most recent year for which data

15

are available), the Career Center facilitated almost 1600 interviews on our campus, which equates to an average of seven interviews per student engaged with the Career Center (see also Section L of the Institutional Appendix).

D. Transfer Students and Transfer Courses Each year, SEAS sees an influx of as many as 100 transfers students, both "internal" (from another UVa undergraduate school) and "external" (from another institution). The processes for admission of these two groups are different and are described below. Note that each year SEAS also loses a similar number of students who transfer from SEAS to the College of Arts and Sciences at UVa, or transfer to another institution.

D.1 External Transfer Student Admission. Transfer students from outside the University ("external" transfers) are processed centrally through the University Office of Undergraduate Admissions. UVa has recently adopted the Common Application, and all University applicants use the CommonApp for application. Transfer students are typically only admitted in the Fall semester, with a mid-March application deadline. Applicants are reviewed for relevant coursework and related experiences, standardized testing scores, a demonstrated ability to write effectively (via the application essays), and of course their academic credentials from their previous institution(s). Transfer students are typically admitted directly to a SEAS major, and the Office of Undergraduate Admission works directly either with the SEAS Undergraduate Dean's Office or the department faculty to make admission decisions. Table 1-3-a shows the recent history of external transfers into SEAS. In a typical year, the majority of these external transfers come from the Virginia Community College System (VCCS). It is important to note that UVa SEAS now has an articulation agreement with the VCCS which guarantees admission to SEAS for VCCS students who achieve specific credentials while at VCCS. In brief, those credentials include earning an Associates in Science degree, accumulate at least 54 transferrable credits, and maintain a 3.4 GPA or higher. All the details are included in the "Guaranteed Admission Agreement" posted on the Admissions website.

Table 1-3-a. External transfer students into SEAS for past five academic years.

Academic Year Number of Transfer Students

Enrolled 2009-2010 53 2008-2009 37 2007-2008 45 2006-2007 44 2005-2006 42


D.2 Internal Transfer Student Admission. Students from other undergraduate schools at the University are also eligible for transfer into SEAS. Transfer students typically come from the College of Arts and Sciences, although we occasionally see transfer students from Architecture. In all cases, the criteria for transfer include:

16

i. good University standing (CUM GPA above 2.0) ii. a history of success in technical courses, such as calculus, physics and chemistry

Where appropriate, the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs will counsel prospective transfers on how best to prepare for a transfer. Students who have not demonstrated success in a technical curriculum (regardless of their GPA) are typically encouraged to enroll in an appropriate set of engineering/science courses--and perform well--before the transfer request will be approved. Table 1-3-b shows the recent history of internal transfers to SEAS.

Table 1-3-b. Internal transfer students to SEAS for past five academic years.

Academic Year Number of Transfer Students

Enrolled 2009-2010 41 2008-2009 35 2007-2008 25 2006-2007 25 2005-2006 39


D.3 Transfer Credit Evaluation. Students with an academic record from another higher education institution are eligible to receive transfer credit for courses they have taken, subject to SEAS and University rules as follows. The University "grants transfer credit based on an analysis of the content, level, and comparability of the courses taken, the applicability of the courses to the student’s intended major and degree program, the quality of the student’s performance in the courses, and the accreditation of the institution at which the work was completed." (from the Undergraduate Record, 2009-2010). Students must earn a grade of C or better in order to receive transfer credit, and only the credits--not the grade itself--are transferred. Courses taken in an alternate course calendar (say, a quarter system) are converted to semester credits, and student may receive no more (and may receive fewer) credits than the number of credits earned at the host institution. Students must earn at least half of their credits toward their UVa degree at UVa; for engineering students, this means that at least 64 credits must be taken at UVa. Eligibility of a particular course for use as transfer credit is typically established based upon factual data about the course as provided on a course syllabus; this information includes number of credits, course coverage, textbook used, class meeting schedule, grading structure, etc. Courses for transfer credit are evaluated in the Undergraduate Programs Office, with the consultation of faculty in relevant disciplines, based upon information provided by the students.

On the rare occasions when a student requests credit for work done in a non-accredited school or in upper classes in a program that is not accredited by ABET, no credit is allowed without the complete concurrence of the members of the faculty who are qualified to pass judgment on this matter. This careful review of the work and the requirement that subsequent work must be passed to validate the credit are, we believe, adequate protection against acceptance of substandard work.

17

D.4 Transfer Student Performance and Graduation Rates. Students who transfer into SEAS, either from the VCCS, from another undergraduate School at the University, or from any other institution, perform nearly as well as traditional, direct-admit students in SEAS. Table 1-3-c shows the graduation rates for external transfers to the University by source (VCCS or other), year, and whether they graduate from SEAS or from another undergraduate School at the University. The data through 2007 are the most recent data available (statistics for students entering in 2008 and beyond have not been tabulated yet, because very few will have graduated by Spring 2010). The key data are the three- and four-year graduation rates from both UVa and SEAS. Most of our external transfer students arrive with preparation equivalent to our rising second-year students, regardless of whether they have already earned an Associates degree or not. The reason is that the VCCS curricula do not include a large number of engineering courses (although this number is growing), and so transfer students generally have not completed most of the courses in our second-year curricula (which tend to be in-major courses). As a result, the three- and four-year graduate rates for these external transfers are roughly akin to the four- and five-year graduation rates for our traditional students, directly admitted in their freshman year. Graduation rates in the high 70% for SEAS and the high 80% for UVa are excellent by any national standard. We conclude from this data that the transfer admission process/selection criteria, advising structures, and support networks in place for transfer students are sufficient to support their academic success, because they graduate at nearly the same rate as our non-transfer students.

18

Table 1-3-c. Graduation rates for external transfers into SEAS, 2001-2007. Graduated from UVa Graduated from Engineering School Entering

Fall Term

Type # Entered

2-Yr Rate

3-Yr Rate

4-Yr Rate

5-Yr Rate

6-Yr Rate

2-Yr Rate

3-Yr Rate

4-Yr Rate

5-Yr Rate

6-Yr Rate

VCCS 16 6.3% 56.3% 68.8% 87.5% 87.5% 6.3% 50.0% 56.3% 75.0% 75.0% Other 31 6.5% 74.2% 80.6% 83.9% 83.9% 6.5% 71.0% 80.6% 80.6% 80.6% 2001 Total 47 6.4% 68.1% 76.6% 85.1% 85.1% 6.4% 63.8% 72.3% 78.7% 78.7% VCCS 6 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 66.7% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 66.7% Other 32 6.3% 59.4% 81.3% 87.5% 90.6% 0.0% 50.0% 71.9% 78.1% 81.3% 2002 Total 38 7.9% 57.9% 76.3% 81.6% 86.8% 2.6% 50.0% 68.4% 73.7% 78.9% VCCS 13 15.4% 61.5% 76.9% 92.3% 100.0% 7.7% 53.8% 69.2% 76.9% 84.6% Other 24 8.3% 79.2% 87.5% 87.5% 91.7% 8.3% 70.8% 75.0% 75.0% 79.2% 2003 Total 37 10.8% 73.0% 83.8% 89.2% 94.6% 8.1% 64.9% 73.0% 75.7% 81.1% VCCS 8 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0% 25.0% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0% Other 32 12.5% 50.0% 65.6% 68.8% 12.5% 50.0% 62.5% 65.6% 2004 Total 40 15.0% 55.0% 72.5% 75.0% 15.0% 55.0% 70.0% 72.5% VCCS 16 25.0% 75.0% 87.5% 25.0% 68.8% 81.3% Other 26 23.1% 84.6% 96.2% 23.1% 80.8% 84.6% 2005 Total 42 23.8% 81.0% 92.9% 23.8% 76.2% 83.3% VCCS 16 12.5% 43.8% 12.5% 43.8% Other 28 17.9% 71.4% 17.9% 57.1% 2006 Total 44 15.9% 61.4% 15.9% 52.3% VCCS 16 6.3% 6.3% Other 29 10.3% 10.3% 2007 Total 45 8.9% 8.9%

7-Year Total

7-Year Avg.%

6-Year Avg.%

5-Year Avg.%

4-Year Avg.%

3-Year Avg.%

7-Year Avg.%

6-Year Avg.%

5-Year Avg.%

4-Year Avg.%

3-Year Avg.%

VCCS 91 14.3% 60.0% 76.3% 86.0% 88.6% 13.2% 56.0% 71.2% 76.7% 77.1% Other 202 11.9% 68.8% 82.1% 81.5% 88.5% 10.9% 62.4% 74.5% 73.9% 81.6% Total Total 293 12.6% 66.1% 80.4% 82.7% 88.5% 11.6% 60.5% 73.5% 75.9% 80.3%

(Source: IAAS)

19

E. Graduation Requirements Degree certification for each SEAS graduate is completed centrally in the SEAS Undergraduate Programs Office by the SEAS Registrar and the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs. In all cases, the student's record is compared to the relevant curricular requirements, any course substitutions or other petitions are considered, and a search for "I" (incomplete) grades is performed (students may not graduate with an I grade on their transcript). Students who meet both the major and School requirements, who have followed University rules and policies, who have adhered to the Honor code, and who are academically in good standing (GPA > 2.0), are recommended to the program faculty for graduation. The program faculty then vote to confer the degree on the degree candidates.

The process by which the SEAS Registrar ensures students have fulfilled all degree requirements is as follows. The Registrar uses a degree audit generated by our Student Information System, along with the curriculum sheet relevant to that student's graduation requirements, plus any petitions or other course substitutions present in the student's file, to determine whether the degree requirements have been met. For many years, SEAS has used an approach which employs a system-generated audit along with human oversight and double-checking to ensure that students have indeed fulfilled the degree requirements. Where required, the SEAS Registrar engages with the department faculty to resolve any questions about the student record.

Curriculum sheets for all SEAS majors are available on the departmental web pages, so both students and faculty have easy access to the information. In addition, each undergraduate student has a faculty advisor who helps with course scheduling and is charged with oversight of the student to keep him/her on pace with the curriculum.

F. Enrollment and Graduation Trends F.1 Enrollment Trends. The general recent trend in engineering has been toward increasing enrollment at a rate of 50-60 students per year. This is roughly a growth of 2% per year. The number of graduates has been increasing at a slower rate, and Table 1-4 summarizes enrollment and graduation data for the past five academic years. Prior to the most recent five-year period, the enrollment in SEAS had held steady between 1,900-2,000 students since academic year 1999-2000. So there has been an overall increase in enrollment of nearly 300 students over the past 10 years.

F.2 Graduation Trends. Over this same ten-year period, the number of annual graduates from SEAS programs increased by 60-70 students. Note that UVa is a residential-based experience, so the number of part-time students in the University in general, and SEAS in particular, continues to be fairly small--on the order of 1% of the student population. The recent history of graduates from this program is shown in Table 1-5. The number of degrees conferred in each SEAS discipline for the past five years is shown in Table 1-6, and we should emphasize that the number of graduates and number of degrees are not the same, because some graduates earn multiple degrees as described next.

F.3 Second Majors and Minors. We have recently seen a slight uptick in the number of students earning double majors and/or (multiple) minors. This is at least partially a reflection of

20

students arriving with large amounts of advanced standing, which introduces flexibility into their curriculum. Students also have more diverse interests than ever before, so we often see majors and minors in other Schools at the University. Figure 1-1 graphically illustrates the explosive growth in popularity of the SEAS Engineering Business Minor, as well as the steady demand for other SEAS and non-SEAS minors. Figure 1-2 shows the more moderate, but generally steady, growth in the number of second majors earned by SEAS graduates. The bulk of the SEAS second majors are earned in computer engineering, computer science, and electrical engineering, largely because of the inherent overlap in their curricula. The non-SEAS second majors are, in a typical year, about 2/3 in Economics, with the balance of non-SEAS second majors scattered across a wide range of science and humanities disciplines.

F.4 Degrees Conferred by SEAS. In this context, we next consider the total number of degrees conferred by SEAS over the past five years. Table 1-6 shows the number of degrees conferred by our currently-accredited programs. The University typically reports such data (via the Data Digest) with the following description: "Students are counted in each major for which they completed degree requirements. Therefore, students with more than one major are counted more than once in this table. Minors and concentrations are excluded." Therefore, the number of degrees conferred by each program includes students who satisfied degree requirements for more than one degree, and as a result the number of degrees conferred does not equal the number of students graduated. Note also that the degrees conferred by our single non-accredited program (Engineering Science) are not shown on the table, and generally we have about 10-15 Engineering Science graduates per year. The general conclusion from Table 1-6 is that the only program exhibiting a "trend" is Biomedical Engineering; in its start-up phase as a degree program, its enrollment (and therefore the number of degrees conferred) continues to increase.

Table 1-4. SEAS enrollment trends for past five academic years.

2008-2009 2007-2008 2006-2007 2005-2006 2004-2005 Full-time Students1 2115 2057 2007 1951 1971 Part-time Students1 19 25 29 24 17 Student FTE2 2125 2070 2022 1963 1980 Graduates3 450 467 434 410 427

1 Fall headcount 2 FTE = Full-Time Equivalent; estimate based upon assuming PT students take 6 credits per semester, so 2 PT = 1 FT 3 counts the number of students graduated, which is smaller than the total of all majors because some students complete more than one major but graduate once (Source: UVa Data Digest, IAAS)

21

Figure 1-1. Minors earned by SEAS graduates, last six years (Source: SIS).

Figure 1-2. Second majors earned by SEAS graduates, last six years (Source: SIS).

22

Table 1-5. Program Graduates Electrical Engineering

Numerical Identifier

Semester

Matriculated

Graduation Date

Initial or Current Employment/

Job Title/

Other Placement

1 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 General Dynamics Electric Boat/Electrical Engineer

2 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 University of Florida Grad School/PhD-Electrical Engineering

3 Fall 2004 Fall 2009 Graduate School

4 Fall 2007 Spring 2010 Returning to Home Country

5 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 University of VA Grad School/Electrical Engineering

6 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 Clark Energy Group/Investment Banking-Financial Analyst

7 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 University of VA Grad School/Master of Science – Materials Science

8 Fall 2006 December 2009 Virginia Diodes, Inc./ Electrical Engineer

9 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 JP Morgan/Investment Banking-Financial Analyst

10 Fall 2007 December 2009 NRAO/Linux System Administrator-Electrical Engineer

11 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 Graduate School

12 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 University of Arizona/ Dental School

13 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 MITRE Corporation/ Modeling & Simulation Engineer

14 Spring 2006 Spring 2010 FTI Consulting/ Consultant

15 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 Pepco/Power Engineer

16 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 Accenture/Consultant

17 Fall 2005 December 2009

18 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 Harvard Law School/ J.D. Degree-Law

23

19 Fall 2007 Spring 2010 Verizon/Systems Analyst & Designer

20 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 Alarm.com (Security Electronics Firm)/

Electrical Engineer

21 Fall 2004 Spring 2010 Carnegie Mellon University Grad School/PhD-Engineering & Public Policy

22 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 Micron Technology/ CVD Process Engineer

23 Summer 2006 Spring 2010 Edge Energy/Consultant

24 Fall 2005 Summer 2009

25 Fall 2006 Spring 2010 Pepco Holdings, Inc.

Table 1-6. Graduates from each program for past five academic years.

Program 2008-2009 2007-2008 2006-2007 2005-2006 2004-2005 Aerospace 9 30 29 12 22 Biomedical 67 59 73 48 34 Chemical 41 25 34 22 34 Civil 49 53 52 54 37 Computer Eng. 27 49 31 31 33 Computer Sci. 54 55 45 52 61 Electrical 39 58 40 41 59 Mechanical 76 52 57 53 66 Systems 87 97 76 89 95 Total 449 478 437 402 441

Note: This table does not include Engineering Science graduates; students with double majors are counted twice in this data. (Source: UVa Data Digest, IAAS)

24

CRITERION 2. PROGRAM EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES

ABET Definitions:

Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe the career and professional accomplishments that the program is preparing graduates to achieve.

Assessment under this criterion is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the achievement of program educational objectives.

Evaluation under this criterion is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program educational objectives are being achieved, and results in decisions and actions to improve the program.

A. Mission Statement

Table 2-1: Mission statements of the University, the School, and the Departments

Division Mission statement


The central purpose of the University of Virginia is to enrich the mind by stimulating and sustaining a spirit of free enquiry directed to understanding the nature of the universe and the role of mankind in it. Activities designed to quicken, discipline, and enlarge the intellectual and creative capacities, as well as the aesthetic and ethical awareness, of the members of the University and to record, preserve, and disseminate the results of intellectual discovery and creative endeavor serve this purpose. In fulfilling it, the University places the highest priority on achieving eminence as a center of higher learning.

(http://www.virginia.edu/statementofpurpose/purpose.html)

School of Engineering and Applied Science

To achieve international prominence as a student-focused school of engineering and applied science that educates men and women to be leaders in technology and society and that contributes to the well being of our citizens through the creation and transfer of knowledge.

(http://www.seas.virginia.edu/about/mission.php)

Charles L. Brown Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

The mission of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering is to educate students to become leaders in the fields of electrical and computer engineering and the community as a whole, and to perform advanced scholarly research that creates new knowledge, innovative technology, and employment opportunities, to enhance the economic competitiveness of the Commonwealth of

Virginia and to improve the quality of life for all humanity.

(http://www.ee.virginia.edu/)

25

B. Program Educational Objectives

Graduates of the Electrical Engineering program at the University of Virginia utilize their academic preparation to become successful practitioners and innovators in electrical engineering and other fields. They analyze, design and implement creative solutions to problems with electrical and electronic devices and systems. They contribute effectively as team members, communicate clearly and interact responsibly with colleagues, clients, employers and society.

C. Consistency of the Program Educational Objectives with the Mission of the Institution There is a clear connection between the program educational objectives and the mission statements of the University of Virginia, the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (Table 2-1). Each mission statement emphasizes the institutional focus on breadth in education, continuous self improvement, and improvement of the human condition.

D. Program Constituencies The constituencies of the electrical engineering program are:

1. Current students in the program 2. Alumni of the program 3. Employers (and graduate schools)

E. Process for Establishing Program Educational Objectives The program educational objectives and program outcomes were initially formulated by the EE Curriculum Committee and amended and approved by the ECE faculty. Program objectives were also reviewed by the Industrial Advisory Board (representing employers) and by students (at a “town hall” meeting). The initial statement of the PEO was approved by the EE curriculum committee in early fall 2001. The PEO were revised slightly during the last review process when it was suggested that at least one of our outcomes (at that time) was really more of an objective. As ABET and the EAC refined their definitions of PEO, our statements were revised to meet the changing standards. The changes were not substantive and were easily approved by the faculty and the IAB.

The needs of the constituencies are determined in several ways: an alumni survey, the IAB, an exit survey (of graduating seniors) and the recruiter survey. The IAB reviews our undergraduate programs and provides insight concerning the needs of industry. The open-ended questions on the alumni survey provide suggestions for improvement, while those on the recruiter survey let us know the attributes of a successful employee. Each of these sources helps us determine the needs of our constituents and consider them in formulating our PEO.

In theory, the Educational Objectives are formally reviewed every three years. Assuming that the criteria concerning PEO does not change, we will next review and evaluate our PEO in 2013. Any re-formulation of the PEO would be made at this time and the modified PEO will be published in the EE Undergraduate Handbook, the University Undergraduate Record, and the department web page.

26

F. Achievement of Program Educational Objectives Our assessment and evaluation process for PEO depend primarily on two instruments: an alumni survey and a recruiter survey. Both are administered by the SEAS Director or Program Assessment. The alumni survey is given every 3 years and is targeted to alumni 3-5 years after graduation. The recruiter survey is given annually to on-grounds recruiters who attend the Engineering Career Days events each September. Both surveys are locally developed and ask open-ended questions; this makes analysis a little more difficult but we believe it gives more useful feedback, especially with respect to suggestions for improvement.

In this document we show explicitly how the PEO are parsed out, and which survey questions are used to assess them. Because the process is the same for both the computer engineering and electrical engineering programs, we discuss both here. This section of the self-study is identical for both programs. We begin by recalling the PEO statements for both programs and then parse the statements into phrases which are considered in turn.

The Program Educational Objectives in CpE and EE:

Graduates of the Computer Engineering program at the University of Virginia utilize their academic preparation to become successful practitioners and innovators in computer engineering and other fields. They analyze, design and implement creative solutions to problems with computer hardware, software, systems and applications. They contribute effectively as team members, communicate clearly and interact responsibly with colleagues, clients, employers and society.

Graduates of the Electrical Engineering program at the University of Virginia utilize their academic preparation to become successful practitioners and innovators in electrical engineering and other fields. They analyze, design and implement creative solutions to problems with electrical and electronic devices and systems. They contribute effectively as team members, communicate clearly and interact responsibly with colleagues, clients, employers and society.

become successful practitioners and innovators

Question 11 of the alumni survey asks respondents to indicate whether they have done any of several activities that characterize a successful practitioner and innovator. Most of these activities are accomplishments that perhaps 10% would have achieved so soon after graduation. Any responses above that threshold are excellent indicators of success. We expect that more than one third of the respondents would respond positively to those highlighted in bold.

27

EE CPE Target

% of 55

% of 39

% of respondents

participated in a professional society ? 35 28 > 33%

had supervisory responsibility for others ? 42 54 > 33%

mentored UVa students? 31 26 > 10%

been involved in a start-up company ? 16 26 > 10%

published an article, book, etc. ? 29 26 > 10%

mentored a colleague ? 45 62 > 33%

filed for or been awarded a patent ? 11 3 none

been recognized for technical achievement ? 31 41 > 25%

held a position of leadership ? 45 57 > 33%

presented your work in a public forum? 42 33 > 33%

been recognized for non-technical achievement ? 31 33 > 25%

shared your knowledge as a teacher, trainer, tutor, etc.?

64 56 > 50%

contributed to an open-source development activity? 4 18 none

28

Question 15 of the alumni survey asks about additional education or qualifications achieved since graduation. Although this question speaks more to an outcome (lifelong learning) this question also reflects on an activity that is important to successful practice and so we include it in our PEO assessment. We expect that more than one third of the respondents would respond positively to those highlighted in bold.

EE CPE Target

% of 52

% of 33

% of respondents

I have taken one or more classes at a college or university

46 40 > 33%

I am working towards or have earned an additional degree

75 76 > 33%

I have participated in a training program sponsored by my employer

42 49 > 33%

I have participated in a training program at my own initiative

8 30 none

I have achieved a professional certification 12 15 none

I am a licensed professional engineer 0 0 none

Question 16 on the alumni survey does not directly measure attainment of an educational objective but rather reflects on the preparation received as an undergraduate: How well prepared were you to acquire new knowledge and skills? We expect no more than 5% of responses to be “Not well prepared”

EE CPE Target

% of 59

% of 33

% of respondents

Well prepared: I could recognize what I needed to learn and acquire the needed knowledge

73 73

Moderately well prepared: I knew I was missing something but it was hard to know what I was missing

25 27

Combined greater than 90%

Somewhat prepared: I found it hard to acquire new knowledge and skills

0 0

Not well prepared: My preparation was poor and I had great difficulty meeting expectations

2 0 Less than 5%

29

The questions on the recruiter survey are open-ended and serve two purposes. First, we ask the recruiters about skills and qualities they value. Their answers can help us establish the needs of one of our major constituencies: employers. For the qualities they list, we also ask how well UVA graduates have met their criteria. This latter response could give us some insight into how well our graduates attain the PEO. We note however that many of the recruiters are UVA graduates and so these results are likely skewed positively; further, if past experience with UVA graduates is not positive the recruiters would not come to UVA to recruit. Thus the best information we can glean from the recruiters is to note the most frequent responses. The recruiters are also asked which majors they seek; the responses are filtered by major and distributed to programs. Virtually all recruiters who sought EE majors were also recruiting CPE majors, so we do not differentiate these responses. Question 1: By what criteria do you evaluate the success of engineers within your company? In your experience, how well have UVA graduates met these criteria? Most frequent responses:

o Eagerness, Enthusiasm, Energy; Drive, Sense of Responsibility o Technical Skills o Knowledge of Field; high GPA o Communication Skills, Experience o Problem-solving skills; ability to think outside the box

Question 3: Why have you come to UVa to recruit? Most frequent responses:

o Analytical skills o Quality of the students o Quality of the program o Past success o Reputation

analyze, design and implement creative solutions to problems in ... • EE: electrical and electronic devices and systems • CPE: computer hardware, software, systems and applications

Question 12 of the alumni survey asks graduates how well several aspects of their program prepared them for life after graduation. Responses to these questions indicate the degree to which their program prepared them to analyze, design and implement solutions to problems in their field. Although we’d like to have no responses of “something missing” we recognize that a four-year program with many free electives cannot prepare everyone completely. So a response of “something missing” of less than 20%, when combined with a high response to the question on additional training and education is satisfactory.

30

EE

% of 58 responses

CPE

% of 41 responses

Excellent or Adequate

Preparation

Inadequate Preparation;

something missing


Preparation

Inadequate Preparation;

something missing

Required courses in your major

81 9 80 10

Elective courses in your major

79 11 73 13

Major design experience

56 13 69 8

Senior thesis 68 7 70 3

Technical electives

79 2 70 0

Target < 20% < 20%

contribute effectively as team members Question 14 on the alumni survey asks for the degree to which graduates are prepared to function as a member of a team. Our goal is that less than 5% of respondents report that they were poorly prepared.

EE

% of 60 responses

CPE

% of 42 responses

Excellent or Adequate Preparation

Poorly prepared

Excellent or Adequate Preparation

Poorly prepared

93 0 90 5

Target:

< 5%

Target:

< 5%

The open ended comments to this question gave two interesting responses. The first suggested that groups of 4 or more allow one (presumably the respondent) to take advantage of the others. Another mentioned that office politics or social skills play a larger role than expected.

31

communicate effectively and interact responsibly with colleagues, clients, employers and society

Question 12 of the alumni survey asks graduates how well several aspects of their program prepared them for life after graduation and how important each aspect was to their life. Responses to these questions indicate the degree to which their program prepared them to communicate effectively and act responsibly. We expect a response of “something missing” of less than 15%.

EE

% of 58 responses

CPE

% of 41 responses


Preparation; or not important to my life but I’m glad I took

them

Inadequate Preparation; something

missing


Preparation; or not important to my life but I’m glad I took

them

Inadequate Preparation; something

missing

Science, Technology & Society courses

86 5 85 12

Humanities and Social Sciences Electives

93 7 80 13

Unrestricted Electives

97 2 90 10

Target: < 15% < 15%

32

CRITERION 3. PROGRAM OUTCOMES

ABET definitions:

Program outcomes are narrower statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire in their matriculation through the program.

Assessment under this criterion is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the achievement of program outcomes.

Evaluation under this criterion is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment practices. Evaluation determines the extent to which program outcomes are being achieved, and results in decisions and actions to improve the program.

A. Process for Establishing and Revising Program Outcomes At the time of the last review, we had an established set of program outcomes that were different from, but covered, the ABET suggested outcomes. We also had a process for reviewing and revising those outcomes. However, the 2009-2010 “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs” explicitly declares that program outcomes are the ABET listed outcomes, so we have adopted the ABET outcomes as our program outcomes.

In SEAS we have coordinated processes for interpretation, assessment and evaluation of program outcomes across many programs. We have established a school-wide committee with representatives of each program, a representative from the STS (Science Technology and Society) department, the director of the APMA program and the associate dean for undergraduate programs. Within this group we defined a process that many programs have adopted. The ABET outcomes were partitioned into two sets: those that are generic to all programs and those whose interpretation are program specific. As an example, outcome (g) an ability to communicate effectively was placed in the first set and outcome (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems was placed in the second. Although all engineering students achieve this latter outcome, the specific types of engineering problems that they identify, formulate and solve are program specific.

The generic outcomes are, in a sense, “owned” by the department (STS) or entity (APMA program director) who is responsible for teaching these courses. The specific assessment tools and evaluation processes for these outcomes are designed and implemented by the “owner.” Assessment reports are distributed to each program, and each program can provide feedback to the entity responsible for that outcome. Suggestions for revising the specific interpretation of an outcome can come from any program and are considered and discussed by the entire committee.

The program-specific outcomes are “owned” by each program. The committee worked together to create templates for assessment tools but the refinement and implementation of the assessment process belongs to each individual program. In the electrical engineering program the outcomes are assessed, evaluated and revised within the electrical engineering Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC). Since many of our classes are shared with the computer engineering and compute science programs, the chairs of these three UCC coordinate their activities to ensure

33

that the outcomes and assessments are appropriate and that there is no unnecessary duplication of efforts.

B. Program Outcomes The electrical engineering program outcomes are the ABET EAC outcomes:

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

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

(c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

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

(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

(g) an ability to communicate effectively

(h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

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

(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues

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

C. Relationship of Program Outcomes to Program Educational Objectives

Graduates of the Electrical Engineering program at the University of Virginia utilize their academic preparation to become successful practitioners and innovators in electrical engineering and other fields.

is supported by all of the outcomes because it is a generic statement of achievement.

They analyze, design and implement creative solutions to problems with electrical and electronic devices and systems.

is supported by the outcomes that relate specifically to their technical knowledge, that is outcomes



34




They contribute effectively as team members, communicate clearly and interact responsibly with colleagues, clients, employers and society.

is supported by the outcomes that relate specifically to their professional values, that is, outcomes






(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues

D. Relationship of Courses in the Curriculum to the Program Outcomes The courses in the electrical engineering curriculum can be classified into several types, and each type supports a subset of the program outcomes:

Math and Science. These include the calculus sequence through differential equations, chemistry and physics. Math and science courses explicitly support the attainment of the mathematics and science part of outcome

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Fundamentals of electrical engineering. These include the major courses taken in the second year after the student has selected a major and directly support attainment of the engineering part of the outcome

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering.

Upper level electrical engineering. These include the third and fourth year courses in the major, both required and elective as well as the major design experience. This set of courses support attainment of the outcomes

35




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

Science, Technology & Society courses. These include a first year required course, a second year elective course and the fourth year sequence of courses which include the senior thesis. These courses are taught within the engineering school by the faculty in the Science Technology and Society Department and have been designed to support the attainment of the outcomes






(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues.

Humanities and Social Sciences courses. In addition to the set of 4 STS courses, all SEAS major require at least 3 HSS (Humanities and Social Sciences) courses. HSS courses support the “broad education” part of outcome


as well as outcome


Unrestricted Electives. The electrical engineering program allows a student to take 5 (almost) unrestricted (free) electives. The only restrictions are that the course be graded and not substantially duplicate material covered elsewhere. The unrestricted electives support the “broad education” part of outcome


as well as outcome


36

E. Documentation Materials that have been gathered for display include the traditional binders which contain samples of student work (homework, labs, tests, etc) arranged by course. That is, there is a separate binder for each required course taught in the2009-2010 academic year. In these binders the reviewers can see how a particular course is implemented and how the students demonstrated knowledge and learning. There will also be a binder of materials related to PEO evaluation and a set of binders showing the assessment and evaluation results specific to each outcome. Another binder will contain the summary program assessment reports. Samples of student major design experience project reports will also be available.

In addition to the program-specific materials described above, the Science Technology & Society Department will provide sample materials and assessment reports for their courses. There are 4 required STS courses in our curriculum, a first year introduction to STS and engineering, a 2nd year elective that investigates some particular topic in depth and a pair of 4th year courses which encompass the senior thesis. These will be housed at a central location along with materials from applied math, physics and chemistry.

We have been transitioning to the use of a web-based tool for assessment tracking, WEAVE, in which each program defines goals (PEO), outcomes, measures, findings and action plans. The learning curve for WEAVE is rather steep and some features are not yet fully implemented, but WEAVE does allow us to track our assessment and evaluation processes and to generate assessment reports for review by the committee. The reports in WEAVE are best viewed on-line since there are hot-links to individual files submitted by instructors who perform assessment in their courses. A hard copy of available assessment reports for STS, APMA and computer engineering courses will be made available to the evaluators at the site visit.

37

Electrical Engineering Program-Outcomes Map

Electrical Engineering Program Outcomes Course

Assessment Map (Indicates where each outcome is

assessed.) Blue font respresents centralized

assessment (common to all programs) while brown text represents program-

specific assessment

STS

101

0 &

ele

ctiv

e

STS

401

0 &

402

0 (th

esis

)

Mat

h th

ru D

iffE

q

Che

m &

Phy

sics

EN

GR

162

0 In

tro E

ngin

eerin

g

AP

MA

310

0 P

roba

bilit

y

CS

111

0 In

tro C

S

EC

E 2

630

Circ

uits

EC

E 2

660

Elec

troni

cs I

EC

E 3

750

Sign

als/

Sys

tem

s

EC

E 3

209

Elec

trom

agne

tic

Fiel

ds

EC

E

Maj

or D

esig

n E

xper

ienc

e

CS

211

0 S

W D

evlo

pmnt

M

etho

ds

CS

/EC

E 3

330

Com

pute

r A

rchi

tect

ure

EC

E e

lect

ives

and

Lab

s

Tech

nica

l Ele

ctiv

es

HSS

ele

ctiv

es

Unr

estri

cted

Ele

ctiv

es

Exi

t Sur

vey


Mat

h

Sci

ence

Mat

h

Eng

nr

Eng

nr

Eng

nr


X


X

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams X X

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

(f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility X

(g) an ability to communicate effectively X X X


X X

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

(j) a knowledge of contemporary issues X X


X

38

F. Achievement of Program Outcomes As discussed earlier, in SEAS we have coordinated processes for interpretation, assessment and evaluation of program outcomes across many programs. There is a SEAS undergraduate curriculum committee (UCC) with representatives of each program, a representative from the STS (Science Technology and Society) department, the director of the APMA program and the associate dean for undergraduate programs. Within this group a process was defined that most programs have adopted.

The ABET outcomes were partitioned into two sets: those that are generic to all programs and those whose interpretation are program specific. As an example, outcome (g) an ability to communicate effectively was placed in the first set and outcome (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems was placed in the second. Although all engineering students achieve this latter outcome, the specific types of engineering problems that they identify, formulate and solve are program specific. The generic outcomes are assessed and evaluated in courses that serve students in all SEAS programs. The specific outcomes are assessed and evaluated in courses that are program specific.

Generic assessment tools were developed for each outcome; the entity responsible for each outcome could refine or adapt the generic tool as they saw fit. In the remainder of this section we will discuss each outcome and describe the process used to assess achievement.

Outcome (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering

There are three aspects to this outcome (mathematics, science and engineering), each of which is addressed separately in the subsequent text.

Mathematics: The ability to apply knowledge of mathematics (calculus through differential equations) is assessed within each of the courses that APMA teaches. APMA courses are taught by a combination of SEAS faculty and faculty from the Math and Statistics department in the College of Arts and Sciences. The APMA director has defined a detailed syllabus of topics for each course and is responsible for selecting the textbook. All sections of a course use the same book and use the same tests and final examination. The assessment is based on the performance of the students on the final exam. Each instructor reports the average score attained on each question, and the course coordinator compiles the results to report achievement on subsets of topics. On the next page is a sample assessment table (extracted from a report) for APMA 212 Multivariable calculus for the academic year 2008-2009. The assessment of student learning in most topics is Good; although that for Vector Calculus is at the high end of Fair. The APMA faculty as well as faculty in some departments have reported concern with student preparation in this area and the instructors are increasing the focus on this topic. In addition, faculty in some follow-on engineering courses are giving a quick review on this topic before proceeding to build on it.

39

Proficiency Rating: Excellent (≥ 90 %) Good (75 – 89 %) Fair (60 – 74 %) Poor (< 60 %)

Section

Topic

Problem On Final

Exam

Wgt %

Average

%

Proficiency

Rating

Objectives/ Outcomes Evaluated

13 & 14 Vectors, Geometry of Space and Vector Functions 23 84.2 % Good 13.1 3-D Coordinate System 1 3 13.2 Vectors 3 13.3 Dot Product 2 3 13.4 Cross Product 3 6 13.5 Equations of Lines and Planes 4 5 13.6 Cylinders & Quadric Surfaces 14.1 Vector Functions & Space Curves 5 3 14.2 Derivatives & Integrals of Vector Functions 14.3 Arc Length & Curvature 14.4 Motion in Space: Velocity & Acceleration 6 3 15 Partial Derivatives 27 83.3 % Good

15.1 Functions of Several Variables 15.2 Limits & Continuity 7 3 15.3 Partial Derivatives 15.4 Tangent Planes & Linear Approximations 8 6 15.5 Chain Rule 11 3 15.6 Directional Derivatives & Gradients 10 3 15.7 Max & Min Values 9 6 15.8 Lagrange Multipliers 12 6 16 Multiple Integrals 21 83.2% Good

16.1 Double Integrals over Rectangles 16.2 Iterated Integrals 16.3 Double Integrals over General Regions 13 3 16.4 Double Integrals over polar Coordinates 14 3 16.5 Applications of Double Integrals 15 6 16.6 Triple Integrals 16 3 16.7 Triple Integrals in Cylindrical Coord. 17 3 16.8 Triple Integrals in Spherical Coord. 16.9 Change of Variables in Multiple Integrals 18 3 17 Vector Calculus 29 72.7% Fair

17.1 Vector Fields 17.2 Line Integrals 19 3 17.3 The Fundamental Theorem for Line Integrals 20 6 17.4 Green’s Theorem 21 6 17.5 Curl and Divergence 17.6 Parametric Surfaces and Their Areas 17.7 Surface Integrals 22 6 17.8 Stokes’ Theorem 23 5 17.9 The Divergence Theorem 24 3

FINAL EXAM AVERAGE 80.4% Good Number of Students who Passed 278 Number of Students who Failed 6

40

Science. The second aspect of outcome (a) is the ability to apply knowledge of science. Electrical engineering students are required to take (at minimum) one semester of Chemistry (with lab) and two semesters of Physics (with lab). Assessment of student learning in these courses occurs within the home department and is summarized here; assessment reports are reviewed by the Associate Dean for Undergraduate programs who interfaces with the programs.

Chemistry. Outcomes assessment focuses on the CHEM 1610 course, because this is the only chemistry lecture course required for all SEAS students. The course has frequent homework assignments, distributed, managed, submitted, and graded using the Mastering Chemistry platform. Because the homework assignments can be completed collaboratively, the class average tends to be very high and the homework grades are therefore not a particularly useful discriminator for student competence. Instead, we will look at performance on the five semester quizzes (15 multiple-choice questions on each quiz) and the final exam (30 multiple-choice questions) as metrics for student performance. Table III-1 shows student performance data for the past two years in CHEM 1610.

Table III-1. Evaluation Tools and Class Average for CHEM 1610.

Class Average (%) Evaluation Tool (time of the semester delivered)

Material Covered

Fall 2008 Fall 2009

Quiz 1 (week 4) matter, measurement, problem solving, atoms, elements, molecules, compounds, chemical equations

81.6 74.0

Quiz 2 (week 7) chemical quantities, aqueous reactions, quantum mechanical atom model

67.7 77.6

Quiz 3 (week 10) periodic properties of the elements, chemical bonding

75.9 75.5

Quiz 4 (week 12) chemical bonding, gases 84.9 78.5

Quiz 5 (week 14) gases, thermo chemistry 74.1 77.3

Final Exam (during finals week)

Cumulative 79.1 77.9

Our goals for student performance are grades of 75% and above. The performance on each evaluation is quite reasonable, and consistent with our goals, and we generally conclude that students are achieving the desired learning outcomes to a large degree. There are occasion aberrances (such as Quiz 2 in Fall 2008), but generally we are pleased

41

with the student performance. In addition, students are satisfied with the course, as indicated by their end-of-course evaluations.

Physics Outcomes assessment in Physics focuses on the two Physics courses which are required by all SEAS students and includes learning outcomes and student satisfaction. Because of frequent complaints from students about the physics lectures, several changes to these programs have been implemented and assessed. These will be described in more detail under Criterion 4 Continuous improvement. The positive impacts of these changes were measured by student responses on the course evaluation forms and by improved student learning outcomes.

Engineering. Within the electrical engineering program, the ability to apply knowledge of engineering is assessed in second-year required courses using the assessment tool shown on the following page. Each year the instructors in these courses are asked to select an assignment in which students are asked to demonstrate their ability to apply knowledge of math & science to an engineering problem. Each student’s work on that assignment is scored on a scale of 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (excellent) and to report the percentage of students who achieve each score. Nominally the goals are that at least 10% of students demonstrate excellence; at least 80% of students demonstrate adequate ability and that no more than 5% of students demonstrate incompetence. Instructors comment on their findings and suggest improvements as needed. The completed forms are forwarded to those who next teach the course to ensure that the process is reasonably consistent.

42

Undergraduate assessment of the ability to apply math & science to an engineering problem Class, semester and instructor

Describe the assignment and the expected correct solution

(Is this a test question, homework assignment or lab assignment? Does it occur early or late in the semester? How much time do the students have to prepare a response? What resources are available? What else should we know about the assignment to understand your assessment)

Describe the process used for sampling and evaluation

(Did you determine a score (between 1-5, see below) while grading or was there a separate review? Did the grader perform the assessment or an independent evaluator? Were all students’ work evaluated or a sample?)

Conclusions and Suggested Actions

(Were the goals met? Does this assessment suggest any changes to the curriculum, assignments or assessment process? )

Record the percentages of students achieving each score

5 4 3 2 1

Goal: >10% Goal: < 5%

Scoring: 5 = excellent, complete and correct

4 = essentially correct but something wrong or missing

3 = adequate, competent but lacking something important

2 = has some correct ideas but overall inadequate

1 = unsatisfactory or incompetent Goal: > 80% score at least adequate

Identification of appropriate theory Has the student correctly identified the pertinent theory, concept or formula to apply to the given problem?

Justification of approach Has the student explained why the chosen approach is appropriate to the given problem?

Application of theory to given problem Assuming that the theory is appropriate to the application, has the student performed the required analysis or calculations correctly?

43

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

For the electrical engineering program, the ability to design and conduct experiments and analyze and interpret data is demonstrated in the EE major design experience course, ECE 4907.Each student in the course takes part in a semester-long major design project that addresses a real-world engineering problem. In this course, the “experiment” is interpreted as a test plan that is evaluated separately from the actual design. Assessment results are recorded using an assessment tool as shown on the following page.

44

Assessment of the ability to conduct experiments, analyze and interpret data via a test plan Students can demonstrate their ability to conduct experiments via the development, justification and implementation of a test plan for a program, circuit, component or system. The interpretation of results can either show that requirements have been met or can be used to identify and diagnose problems.

Class, semester and instructor

Describe the assignment and the system under test

(What is the system being evaluated? Who determines the requirements to be tested/demonstrated? Is this a team assignment or solo? Is the system under test designed by the student performing the evaluation? What parameters or constraints apply? )






5 4 3 2 1

Goal: >10% Goal: < 5%

Scoring: 5 = excellent, complete and correct

4 = essentially correct but something wrong or missing

3 = adequate, competent but lacking something important

2 = has some correct ideas but overall inadequate

1 = unsatisfactory or incompetent Goal: > 80% score at least adequate

Designing the test plan Has the student clearly stated the goal of the test plan? Has the student justified the approach used in the plan? Has the student justified the plan with respect to completeness, coverage or some other measure? Has the student considered off-normal cases?

Interpreting the results Has the student interpreted the results with respect to the stated goal? Were the failed tests used to diagnose problems or improve the design?

45

Outcome (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability

This outcome is primarily assessed in the EE major design experience course, ECE 4907, using the major design assessment form shown on the following page. The instructor scores each team project on the aspects indicated in the form, encompassing both technical engineering performance and team and project management performance. The instructor compiles the results and submits a summary form listing the percentage of students achieving each score. The target is that at least 80% of students perform at least adequately and that no more than 5% perform inadequately.

In the STS 4th year classes, the thesis project (which frequently is the major design experience) requires students to consider and integrate economic, environmental, sustainability, ethical, political, health and safety, and sociopolitical issues into the design, implementation, and management of technological systems. Student theses are evaluated with respect to the student's demonstrated ability to consider and integrate

economic, sustainability, ethical, political, health and safety, and sociopolitical

issues into the design, implementation, and management of technological

systems.

In theses that demonstrate superior competence, the student is able to utilize and integrate knowledge of the societal and global issues to frame new questions and develop new

solutions to engineering problems, (including relevant economic, environmental,

sustainability, ethical, political, health and safety, and socio-political issues). The analysis presented integrates the relevant issues into the student's engineering design and into consideration of the thesis results. The student articulates the pros and cons of the relevant societal and global issues and integrates that understanding into the plan of action.

The assessment results for 2005 suggested that we could not expect students to demonstrate greater mastery of this outcome given the constraints of the traditional thesis format.

These results informed our redesign of the undergraduate thesis project and led to a pilot of a portfolio model for the thesis. A comparative assessment of the two models (portfolio and traditional) undertaken in the Spring of 2008 confirmed that the portfolio model provided a context in which students could achieve and demonstrate a higher level of achievement with regard to this outcome.

Beginning in the Fall of 2008, all undergraduate theses have followed the portfolio model. This change is described in more detail under Criterion 4 Continuous Improvement.

46

Undergraduate Major Design Assessment Scoring:

5 = excellent; 3 = adequate; 1 = unsatisfactory Score Comments

Understanding the problem Has the team understood the problem clearly, provided its motivation, and the requirements for a solution?

Constraints Were design alternatives and tradeoffs considered with respect to realistic constraints?

Success Criteria Has the team adequately understood the measure(s) of success to be used to evaluate the design? Is there a well defined metric with a goal? Does the metric adequately represent the desired success criteria?

Evaluation Process Is there a well-defined model for evaluating the design and alternatives? Are design choices justified using a model?

Solution Approach Is the approach taken well executed? Does it appear to be correct? Has the team utilized appropriate professional standards?

Separation of concerns To what extent did the team succeed in defining and executing their individual roles? Did each team member have a clearly defined set of tasks? Were the functional relationships between the separate team members clearly articulated?

Team Integration Were the interfaces between the artifacts produced by the separate team members clearly defined? Did each team member understand how their tasks fit in the whole?

Project planning and tracking To what extent was the team successful in tracking and evaluating progress and negotiating changes required by unexpected events or other setbacks?

Overall Team Satisfaction To what extent did the team succeed as a group?

47

Outcome (d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams

There are three aspects to the ability to function on multidisciplinary teams and each is assessed separately. Two of these aspects are assessed by the STS (Science, Technology and Society) courses and the third is assessed as part of the major design experience.

o The ability to communicate orally and in writing to both a technical and lay audience is taught and assessed in STS classes and is a key contributor to the ability to function on any team. This assessment is discussed in more detail under outcome (g) an ability to communicate effectively.

o The second aspect relates to project management (separation of concerns, integration, project planning and tracking) and is assessed in the MDE (major deign experience) course using the major design assessment form shown on the previous page.

o The third aspect of the ability to function on a multidisciplinary team is the ability to appreciate perspectives that differ from your own and integrate your individual expertise and views with those of other people of both technical and non-technical backgrounds. This ability is considered and assessed in STS (Science, Technology and Society) 2nd year elective classes.

For 2nd year elective STS classes in which teamwork is an important part of the instruction or class structure, instructors will evaluate students based on an assignment that requires them to reflect on their team experience.

For 2nd year elective STS classes in which teamwork is not a central aspect of the instruction or class structure, instructors will evaluate the students' competence with regard to the foundational skill of appreciating and integrating multiple interpretations, sources, or perspectives. Examples of multiple perspectives would include differing attitudes towards the same subject at different times in history, the differences between a particular historian's view and the views of the people he is writing about, or the differences between the ways that various experts in a field view a particular subject. The most likely ways in which this would be done are research papers and examination questions.

Students who demonstrate superior competence will represent the full range of perspectives offered in the course, make clear distinctions among them, and convey a rich sense of the relationships among the various points of view (authors, stakeholders, theories, etc.). Their work will convey a clear sense of interplay, response, and evolution and generate useful new insights. Something interesting and unexpected but logically consistent will emerge from their analysis, which will be wrapped up with a substantive, concise, synthesized conclusion.

The assessment results indicate a high level of student achievement with regard to the ability to appreciate and different perspectives. We face an ongoing challenge, however, in helping them see how the intellectual ability of appreciating different perspectives translates into the practical activity of functioning effectively as a team member.

48

To address this problem, we introduced the concept of “perspective consciousness” in our first-year STS course. This concept is developed in detail by Robert G. Hanvey in “An Attainable Global Perspective,” a report published in 2004 by The American Forum for Global Education. As the Forum’s title suggests, the concept of perspective consciousness is an important part of a “global perspective.”

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

This outcome is assessed in third-year and fourth-year required courses (not MDE) using the assessment form shown on the following page. Each year the instructors in these courses select an assignment in which students are asked to demonstrate their ability to identify, formulate and solve an engineering problem Each student’s work on that assignment is scored on a scale of 1 (unsatisfactory) to 5 (excellent) and to report the percentage of students who achieve each score. The goals are that at least 10% of students demonstrate excellence; at least 80% of students demonstrate adequate ability and that no more than 5% of students demonstrate incompetence. Instructors comment on their findings and suggest improvements as needed. The completed forms are forwarded to those who next teach the course to ensure that the process is reasonably consistent.

In addition to the technical aspect of this outcome, senior thesis proposals are evaluated with respect to the student's demonstrated ability to identify, formulate, and articulate

engineering problems and to think critically about and reflect on the processes

of problem definition, engineering design, and project management.

Proposals that demonstrate superior competence make it clear that there are both technical and social/ethical reasons why the problem is important and the approach is appropriate. They provide detailed background backed up with quality citations. They articulate the problem precisely and are clear about (a) what will constitute a complete solution and (b) the role that non-technical factors play in both the problem and the solution. They reflect creative analysis of the social and ethical as well as the technical aspects of the problem.

The high level of achievement attained by our students in 2007 as demonstrated in the thesis proposal reflects the ability to frame the problem so that non-experts can appreciate its significance and experts perceive the description of the problem as technically accurate. This capacity for framing and writing for a mixed audience of experts and non-experts is a key component of the ability to communicate effectively. These assessment results informed our redesign of the thesis project in the sense that the prospectus (the portfolio version of the proposal) and oral presentation of it continue to frame the project and define the problem with a mixed audience in mind.

49

Undergraduate assessment of the ability to identify, formulate and solve an engineering problem Class, semester and instructor

Describe the assignment and the expected correct solution

(Is this a test question, homework assignment or lab assignment? Does it occur early or late in the semester? How much time do the students have to prepare a response? What resources are available? What else should we know about the assignment to understand your assessment)






5 4 3 2 1

Goal: >10% Goal: < 5%

Scoring: 5 = excellent, complete and correct 4 = essentially correct but something wrong or missing 3 = adequate, competent but lacking something important 2 = has some correct ideas but overall inadequate 1 = unsatisfactory or incompetent

Goal: > 80% score at least adequate

Defining the problem Has the student clearly stated the problem being considered? Has the student adequately captured the parameters of the problem?

Analysis Approach Has the student developed a model for performing the desired analysis? Is the model appropriate for the intended analysis? Has the student clearly articulated the assumptions?

Solution Approach Is solution of the model well executed? Does it appear to be correct?

50

Outcome (f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

STS courses teach and assess the ability to understand professional and ethical responsibilities as they apply to both particular engineering projects and to the engineering profession as a whole. Student theses are evaluated with respect to the student's ability to demonstrate an understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities as they apply both to particular engineering/computing projects and to the engineering/computing profession as a whole.

In theses that demonstrate superior competence, the student is able to reflect upon and

articulate the ethical implications of his or her particular design and the problem the design attempts to address. He or she not only recognizes professional and ethical responsibilities but articulates how these responsibilities have shaped his or her particular project. The student refers to ethical concepts and explores their significance in the specific context provided by the student's project.

The assessment results for 2005 and 2007 indicate that student achievement for this objective had exceeded our target of at least 80% of students reasonably competent or above. These results also indicated that student mastery of this outcome was demonstrated at a higher level on assignments in which social and ethical issues were the focus. These results informed our redesign of the thesis project.

The 2008 results supported two conclusions:

1.) the portfolio model is more conducive to demonstrating an understanding of ethical and professional responsibility and

2.) our expectations for student performance rose significantly once we became aware of what students could achieve in the portfolio format.

Outcome (g) an ability to communicate effectively

STS courses teach and assess the ability to communicate effectively with both expert and non-expert audiences; both written and oral communication is assessed.

As part of a state-mandated assessment process the writing of all first-year students was evaluated based on a persuasive essay. Essays that demonstrated superior competence exhibited a thorough understanding of audience, occasion, and purpose; introductions that quickly, reliably, and clearly established the context and purpose of the document; conclusions that were logical, clear, and consistent with the rest of the document; good coherence within and between paragraphs; and nearly perfect grammar, diction, and spelling.

In the fourth year courses, proposals and theses are evaluated with respect to the student's demonstrated ability to communicate effectively in writing with both expert and non-expert audiences. Beginning in 2009, this ability is evaluated based on the student’s performance on the STS research paper. (The STS research paper is part of the new portfolio approach to the senior thesis; this approach is described in more detail in the section of this report for Criterion 4 Continuous Improvement.)

51

Thesis proposals that demonstrate superior competence offer clear introductions that frame readers' expectations; consistently focused and developed problem statements; coherent and cohesive chapters, sections, and paragraphs; mature sentence syntax; mechanically correct prose. They excel in use of sources and illustrations and in making complex technical material accessible to non-experts while also providing the depth, rigor, and detail demanded by experts in the field. Although theses in this category may contain an occasional error, most are nearly flawless mechanically.

SCHEV (State Council of Higher Education in Virginia) mandated assessment of several outcomes for all undergraduate students in Virginia. One outcome was the ability to communicate orally and was assessed by an independent evaluation of a random sample of student thesis presentations. It is interesting to note that SEAS students outperformed students in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences on all aspects of this assessment. The only students that outperformed SEAS students (and by a very small margin) were enrolled in the McIntire School of Commerce

Outcome (h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context

In the 4th year STS courses, proposals and senior theses are evaluated with respect to the student's ability to demonstrate an understanding of the impact of engineering

solutions in a global and social context and use that understanding in the formulation of problems, solutions, and designs.

Proposals and theses that demonstrate superior competence take a clearly structured approach to thinking about the context and impact of the project and explore both the obvious and subtle values that motivate the project, including ethical motivations and going well beyond economic motives. They treat the origins of the project as well as the impacts and potential problems along with intended positive outcomes. They consider the perspectives of both experts and non-experts and provide a balanced and realistic perspective. Finally, they close the feedback loop in the sense that the analysis of the social and ethical context of the project significantly shapes the way they formulate the problem and the solution

The assessment results through 2007 indicated a high level of achievement of this outcome given the limits of the traditional thesis format. These results informed our revision of the thesis project and move to the portfolio model. The assessment results from Spring 2008 yielded two conclusions:

1.) the portfolio model allowed higher achievement with regard to this outcome

2.) our expectations rose as a result of seeing what was possible with the new model.

52

Scores declined because expectations were raised. The revised Undergraduate Thesis Manual and improved teaching strategies help students reach higher level of achievement. As a result of the assessment process, we realized that we were teaching and assessing “social” much more than “global.” We introduced the concept of “global” context in STS 101 in Fall 2009 to address this realization.

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

STS courses assess the recognition of the need to and the development of the research and analytical skills necessary to engage in life-long learning and continuing professional development. Senior theses are evaluated with respect to the student's demonstrated ability to engage in independent learning. The assessment data for 2005, 2007, and 2008 reflected the students’ ability to learn independently in their engineering majors. The results clearly indicated that the students were achieving this outcome.

The comparison of pilot portfolio thesis and traditional theses that we conducted in the Spring of 2008 revealed that the students’ ability to undertake independent research in STS were significantly less developed. Beginning in the Fall of 2009, we undertook several strategies for helping students develop this ability in STS, the most tangible being the completely revised Undergraduate Thesis Manual.

Outcome (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues

Student theses are evaluated with respect to the student's demonstrated ability to recognize and analyze the role that science and technology play in contemporary issues and use knowledge of social and historical context to put contemporary issues in perspective.

Theses that demonstrate superior competence make connections between historical/social and contemporary issues and develop insights from those connections. They also show compelling connections between historical/contemporary context and scientific/technical issues. They creatively invoke course materials (concepts and information) in service of a larger argument. Finally, they close the feedback loop in the sense that the analysis of the social context of the project significantly shapes the way they formulate the problem and the solution.

The results of the 2008 assessment suggested that the portfolio model provided a much better context for demonstrating achievement of this outcome. Our discussion of the results led us to modify our curriculum so that we begin explicit instruction in and measurement of contemporary issues in the first year of study (see later description of curriculum re-design in the section of the self-study addressing Criterion 4 Continuous Improvement.) Outcome (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice

Throughout the curriculum, students use engineering tools and techniques that are necessary for engineering practice. These include mathematical techniques, programming languages and environments and logic analyzers to name a few. In consultation with our Industrial Advisory Board, we developed list of tools and techniques that a working electrical engineer would

53

reasonably expect to be familiar with. We expect electrical engineers to be familiar with some of these:

o Circuit simulation

o SW debugging tools

o Mathematical software

o Clean room and IC fabrication facilities

o Digital signal analyzer

o General purpose DSP processors

o Program unit testing tools & frameworks (e.g. JUnit)

o Unix shell commands

o Hardware description language

o Network analysis tools

o Java & OO programming

Not all the tools and techniques which are listed in the query will be familiar to all students, because some are used only in elective courses. This outcome is assessed during the exit survey which is give to graduating students each spring. Students are asked to self-assess their familiarity with the tools on this list, choosing from “never used it”; “familiar” our “fluent” with its use. Our achievement target is that every student is familiar with several of these tools. In both spring 2009 and spring 2010, most of these tools were reported familiar to by majority of students.

54

CRITERION 4. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

A. Information Used for Program Improvement Suggestions for improvement of our program come from many different sources, both informal and formal: students, alumni, faculty, professional colleagues, program assessments, research, advisory boards.

Students provide feedback in several ways. Course evaluations have a standard set of questions and an open-comment section, and instructors can add questions of their choosing. Students meet with faculty advisors at least once a semester and can offer feedback at that time. There is a web-based anonymous feedback mechanism available for most courses and specifically for the electrical engineering program. Each spring all electrical engineering students are invited to an informal luncheon during the reading period. This luncheon is held in a classroom from which all desks are removed and round tables and chairs are brought in to facilitate conversation. One or two faculty members sit at each table and talk with the students who choose to join us. Each year the graduating students complete an exit survey in which they can provide feedback on many aspects of their educational experience. Student suggestions and anecdotes sometimes confirm ideas that have been tossed around informally; sometimes they complement or explain some of the assessment results; other times they spark us to look more closely at an issue that they raise.

Alumni provide feedback to our program formally and informally. We conduct an alumni survey as part of our evaluation of PEO and ask open ended questions that sometimes yield tangible suggestions. Recruiters are frequently alumni, and we talk to them when they visit for recruiting events. Most of the IAB members are alumni as are several of those in our graduate program.

Faculty of course provide suggestions for program improvement, based on their experiences in the classroom, assessment results, discussions with professional colleagues and with students. Normal intellectual curiosity brings changes into the classroom and into our curriculum, as faculty try new ideas and evaluate new technologies or new ideas about learning and teaching. Faculty research informs our undergraduate program as well, whether the research is in fields related to engineering education or whether the research is in our fields of technical specialty.

And of course the results of the assessments used to evaluate PEO and learning outcomes are used to improve our program. Generally the assessment data can isolate a specific issue that can be addressed directly by changing something in a small number of classes.

Exit and alumni surveys are used to gather assessment data, but also contain many open-ended text fields from which come specific suggestions for improvement.

B. Actions to Improve the Program There are several specific program improvements that have been implemented since the last review. Some are SEAS-wide changes (that is, improvements that affect every program), others affect sister programs (EE, CPE and CS for example) and some are specific to the electrical engineering program. Representatives of each type will be described in turn.

55

SEAS-wide improvement to the STS courses and senior thesis

Fourth Year Courses/Thesis Project: Portfolio Approach Figure 1 charts the evolution of the undergraduate thesis project in engineering from 1979 until the present. Throughout this period, our curricular goal has remained constant: helping students develop the ability to use the insights provided by STS to shape, evaluate, and manage engineering enterprises. The story of this evolution has two major themes: (1) steadily increasing expectations regarding students’ ability to conduct productive and relevant STS analysis and research and (2) optimizing the contribution of the undergraduate thesis project as a vehicle for achieving multiple educational outcomes. Our curricular changes have been shaped by an accreditation-driven emphasis on the major design experience as a part of engineering education. They also reflect an evolving vision of the mission of the Department of STS and a need to achieve increased efficiency in the face of decreasing resources. The findings of assessment efforts and formal consultation with our stakeholders have provided direction for our efforts.

Figure 1 Evolution of the Undergraduate Thesis Project 1979-2010

From 1979-2003, the final thesis produced by each student retained essentially the same form. Toward the end of this period—and in response to many of the same factors that shaped the EC2000 accreditation criteria—we placed increasing emphasis on the role of social and ethical considerations in shaping the work of engineers. By the end of the 2004-2005 academic year, our assessment process suggested that we had reached the limits of the traditional thesis format for allowing students to demonstrate their mastery of the contextual issues associated with their thesis projects. Consultation over the next two years with our stakeholders in the various degree programs at the school suggested that the pedagogical goals of both STS and the degree

56

programs could be best achieved and most efficiently managed if we modified the format of the thesis documents themselves, especially the final report.

In response to these insights, the STS 401-402 Core Curriculum Committee and the STS faculty collaborated to develop a portfolio approach to the undergraduate thesis project. In the portfolio formulation, the thesis project documentation includes

• A technical report devised and evaluated by the student’s technical advisor. (This report may have either a single author or multiple authors. All other documents have a single author: the student submitting the portfolio.)

• An STS research paper devised in consultation with and evaluated by the STS advisor.

• A prospectus written at the outset of the project and an executive summary written at the end of the project, both of which integrate the technical and STS research into a comprehensive understanding of the project.

During the 2007-2008 academic year we conducted a pilot of the portfolio approach in which 3 sections (approximately 90 students total) followed the portfolio approach and the remainder (approximately 375) used the traditional approach. The assessment we conducted at the end of that academic year supported the scale-up of the approach in the following academic year. Specifically, we compared student achievement on five outcomes (professional and ethical responsibility, ability to communicate in writing, broad education/global and social context, contemporary issues, and integration of realistic constraints) and found that theses taking the portfolio approach exhibited higher achievement on all of these outcomes.

At the end of the 2008-2009 academic year, we conducted a state-mandated assessment of writing competency based on the STS research papers produced as part of the thesis portfolio . We also measured student achievement on four ABET learning outcomes (in addition to the ability to communicate in writing): integration of contextual issues, professional and ethical responsibility, broad education/global and social context, and the role of engineering in contemporary issues. The students’ mean scores for writing (64) were significantly higher than the overall score (51) for the ABET learning outcomes. An analysis of inter-rater reliability revealed low levels of agreement among the evaluators with regard to most of the criteria. After much discussion, we concluded that the differences in levels of achieve and the lack of agreement among raters could be explained by two factors: (1) higher expectations of student performance in the new format and (2) the absence of clear expectations and proven teaching strategies for this particular kind of document (the STS research paper).

These results informed a major, long-overdue undertaking that we had just begun—revision of the fourth-year thesis assignment and re-writing of the thesis manual. The new thesis manual not only specifies the requirements of the documents that constitute the portfolio, but also (1) puts the current version of the thesis in historical context, (2) outlines the professional and ethical responsibilities entailed in a thesis project, (3) provides numerous examples of possible STS research topics, (4) provides detailed, in-depth information on research sources and approaches used in STS, and (5) provides guidance on citing sources and composing and formatting thesis documents. Perhaps most importantly, it explains how the various documents produced during the project relate to each other and to the practice of engineering.

57

We have yet to undertake a systematic survey of all faculty to assess the success of the portfolio approach. Extensive anecdotal evidence gathered both in and outside of formal committee structures suggests that the approach achieves—or is suited to achieving—all of the goals that motivated the undertaking, specifically:

1. Allow in-depth treatment of social context and ethical issues using a systematic, well-researched STS approach

2. Give maximum flexibility to technical advisors to achieve their pedagogical and publication goals

a. Eliminate duplication in documentation of technical work by allowing students to use document(s) created for capstone projects as the technical report

b. Minimize conflict between STS and capstone/technical advisor deadlines c. Allow technical advisors to define the audience, purpose, and format of the

technical report d. Accommodate the needs of groups without foreclosing the option of doing an

individual thesis 3. Accomplish the first two goals while retaining the strength and coherence of the

thesis project as an integrative educational experience.

Future assessment plans include a survey of all technical advisors to (1) determine their perception of how well the portfolio model achieved its intended goals and (2) identify areas in which further improvement is needed . Within STS, we will engage in another cycle of assessment aim at acquiring a more quantitative, comprehensive view of educational outcomes and identify areas where instructional innovation is needed.

Redesign of First-Year STS course Change in Course Content. From the 1970s until the Spring of 2005, our first-year STS course was titled “Language Communication in a Technological Society.” The course emphasized all four modes of verbal communication: writing, speaking, listening, and reading. Specifically designed with beginning engineering students in mind, the course introduced students to the profession of engineering and the kinds of communication engineers do. Nonetheless, it was based on and bore a strong resemblance to the model prevalent in traditional English 101 courses.

In Fall 2005, we introduced a completely redesigned version of the course, which bears the title “Engineering, Technology, and Society.” The redesigned course retains the objective of developing students’ skills in writing, public speaking, and critical thinking, but its content an introduction to the field of STS (science, technology, and society) and its relevance to engineers. Specifically, it focuses on the ways in which social institutions, practices, and values influence engineers’ work and argues that successful engineering depends upon understanding this social context and working within it. It also emphasizes the influence of and leadership roles assumed by engineers and the unique abilities that engineers possess for crafting a better world, that is, defining and achieving “the good life.” Whereas the old course was assessed only for its contribution to the ability to communicate, the new version sought to develop capacity for life-

58

long learning, knowledge of contemporary issues, and the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering in global and social context.

Change in Course Format. In all of its variations from the 1930s through 2007, STS 101 was taught as a seminar with a single instructor. This format had many advantages but two significant limitations: (1) it consumed a great deal of our faculty resources and (2) because the students were divided into many small classes, the course did not function as effectively as it might have as a common experience for the entire entering class.

In 2006, we began to develop a hybrid course format that consisted of a 75-minute lecture on Tuesday combined with a 75-minute seminar class of no more than 20 students on Thursday. We gradually scaled-up the size of the class and adapted it for first-year students. By the 2009-2010 academic year, the class had been scaled up to the point that we could accommodate all first-year engineering students in a class staffed by one tenured faculty member and 4 teaching assistants. The new format is more efficient, facilitates the development of group identity in the first-year class, brings new blood into the department in the form of enthusiastic teaching assistants, and makes it easier to introduce and assess curriculum improvements.

Other Innovations. Based on the results of the 2009 assessment of papers written in STS 1010, we made three successful changes to the course:

1.) More emphasis on writing effective conclusions

2.) More instruction in systematic use of visuals/graphics

3.) Fewer papers (same number of words as previously) required so that students would spend more time in revision and discovery

Based on our assessment of fourth-year student achievement with regard to understanding engineering solution in global and social context, we realized that we were treating the “social” context more effectively than the “global” context. In Fall 2009, we assessed student understanding of global context separately and found that understanding to be weak. In Spring 2010, we took a more in-depth and direct approach to teaching the concept of a “global perspective,” and student performance improved.

In response to student comments on evaluations and our own sense of the liabilities and potential of the lecture format, we undertook two additional curriculum improvements. First, we scaled up an educational simulation of decision-making in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina so that it could accommodate 200+ students. The simulates active experiential learning and requires extensive interaction among students, both of which create a positive common experience.

Second, we implemented a Class Management Team consisting of 1 representative elected from each of the discussion sections. The team met regularly (usually on a weekly basis) and was part of a larger effort to encourage students to take responsibility for the quality of their learning experience and to provide constructive feedback regarding improvements that could be made as the course was being taught, rather than waiting for evaluation once the course was over.

Redesign of Entire STS curriculum: Conceiving of the Curriculum as a Complete System Over the course of the last several years, the Department of STS has continued to sharpen and refine our understanding of our mission and objectives. This process culminated in a redesign of

59

our entire curriculum that conceives courses as part of a coherent, efficient whole. The changes in the names and descriptions of our courses represent our understanding of our broad mission as an STS department within a school of engineering. It is especially important to note that our understanding now allows us to offer a curriculum that coherently builds from one course to the next. Although all courses weave together three threads: (1) science, technology, and society (STS), (2) ethics, and (3) communication (written and oral), the new titles and descriptions make clearer connections to ABET learning outcomes.

• STS 1500, Science, Technology and Contemporary Issues • STS 2500, Science and Technology in Social and Global Context • STS 4500, STS and Engineering Practice • STS 4600, The Engineer, Ethics, and Professional Responsibility

A second motivation for these changes in the STS curriculum is the enormous reduction in the size of our faculty. This reduction has pressured the Department to create a curriculum that can be offered in a wide range of formats, including large classes. These curriculum changes give us more flexibility in the way we deliver our courses. We will continue, when we can, to provide seminar-style courses with 25-30 students so that there are significant opportunities for oral presentation and significant feedback on writing. However, when that is not possible, the new curriculum is more compatible with teaching larger, lecture or lecture/discussion courses.

SEAS-wide improvement to Physics courses Since 2004, the majority of improvements in the Physics sequence has centered on the 3-credit lecture experiences in PHYS 1425 and PHYS 1429. The modernization of the physics laboratory facilities and curriculum cited in our last self-study continue to be well received by students. The faculty, including the laboratory instructors and TAs, continue to be satisfied with the labs, their objectives, their equipment and facilities, and the student performance. As such, this section focuses on several specific actions taken to remedy identified problems with the lecture components of the physics curriculum.

The History. Since the mid-2000’s, students have routinely cited the lecture components of physics as their least favorite courses, consistently rated the course and instructors quite poorly on end-of-course evaluations, and complained about a perceived lack of preparation for succeeding courses. In short, it appeared that the structure and staffing of the physics lecture courses (PHYS 1425 and 2415) were not meeting our stated objectives. On August 26, 2008, a meeting to discuss the issues with the physics courses, and to develop some solutions, was held in the Physics Building. Attendees were: Dinko Pokanic (Dept. Chair of Physics), Profs. Steve Thornton and Bascum Deaver (both of the Physics Department), and SEAS Associate Dean Ed Berger. At the meeting, the Physics Department presented its plan to remedy many of the recognized deficiencies in the physics lecture courses, as measured by both end-of-course evaluations, and examination of student performance in the class. Their two-page document outlined a series of steps--some administrative, some pedagogical—which were intended to improve the quality of the courses and the preparation of students moving through the courses.

60

The Proposal. The main problems identified by a review of the physics lecture courses were: (i) low student morale and poor lecture attendance, (ii) low exam scores, suggesting poor calibration of the exams to student capabilities (and hence low morale), (iii) scaling challenges associated with hand-grading homework assignments.

There were four main pieces of the Physics proposal.

1. Homework. The biggest change is the introduction of WebAssign as the homework tool. WebAssign is an online homework tool with a suite of textbook-specific problems and a detailed feedback mechanism for students completing their homework. 8-10 problems are assigned per week.

2. Textbook. The textbook was changed to meet certain needs: a complete set of end-of-chapter problems provided in WebAssign, textbook figures in electronic format for integration into lectures, a comprehensive testbank to choose from for quizzes and exams, a set of conceptual questions suitable for clicker usage.

3. Exams. In-class exams (50 minutes each), three times per semester, with questions drawn from a testbank and randomized ordered on the exams to discourage cheating. 20 questions per in-class exam. The target average for the exams is in the 70% range (in contrast with the previous experience: averages in the 40% range).

4. Office Hours. Instructors hold office hours, as do TAs, and there is a problem session for students needing help on the homework. The detailed feedback of the WebAssign system is useful for students needed mild help, and the office hours are typically used by students needing more substantial help.

In addition, two other important changes to the lectures themselves occurred. First, there have been staffing changes, which have much improved the situation. Second, the introduction of clickers into the lecture achieves several objectives: (i) it allows for the introduction, discussion and evaluation of “conceptual” questions, (ii) it engages the students in more active learning (especially when they discuss the questions with their peers sitting around them in lecture), and (iii) it encourages attendance, because clicker responses (not correct answers, just responses) are explicitly a part of the course grade.

Assessment of the Impact of Changes to the Physics Courses The first meeting to discuss the outcome of these changes occurred on June 3, 2009, immediately after the first semester in which the PHYS 1425 course was delivered with the changes mentioned above. The attendees were Steve Thornton and Bascum Deaver from Physics, and Associate Dean Ed Berger from SEAS. In early June 2010, Profs. Thornton and Berger met again to review the results from Fall 2009 and Spring 2010. Taken together, the three semesters of data about the courses (two offerings of PHYS 1425 [Sp09, Sp10], and one offering of PHYS 2415 [F09]) present a promising picture. The rest of this section details some of the specific changes made, and the metrics which indicate the impact of those changes.

There were two main problems with the previous structure of the course, and these two problems were certainly coupled. First was the general problem of student morale, which is tied to instructors, instructional methods, perceived fairness of the course grading structure, and the general perceptions of the students about how the course is executed. Second is the more specific problem of student understanding and mastery of the course content. Certainly,

61

unmotivated students with low morale are less likely to perform well on homework and exams, so we recognized the importance of tackling these two problems together.

Student Morale.

First, a description of the specific changes that have been made. Staffing has had a first-order effect in student morale. The change of staff to Profs. Thornton, Fowler, and Day has made a huge impact on student satisfaction in the course. Their approach to teaching and administering the courses has much broader support among the undergraduate population then did their predecessors. The positive changes can be summarized:

• Homework Policy. The new structure for the course uses WebAssign for homework assignment and submission. This automated online system is flexible, and it enables students to receive immediate feedback about their homework. In previous semesters, the ability to hand-grade a large volume of homework for all students was simply too formidable, so the amount of graded homework was quite small. The new structure allows for a great deal more homework to be submitted, and therefore more time on task.

• Clickers in Class. The new structure uses clicker questions during lecture, encouraging students to collaborate and discuss the questions, and also as a mechanism to encourage class attendance. Overall support for the use of clickers is excellent; for example, in Spring 2009, about 80% of respondents either "agree" or "strongly agree" with the statement "Using the clickers helped me feel engaged with the class". Clicker questions counted for a small amount of the total class grade.

• Student Advisory Committee. Prof. Thornton and his colleagues have formed Student Advisory Committees (SACs) in each of the past three semesters. The SAC is a committee of (volunteer) students in the class, and their role is to be a liaison between the class and the teaching team. The faculty meet with the SAC periodically to discuss issues of relevance to the class, and this structure has impact on both the execution of the course and on class morale. Some examples of actions resulting from the SAC are:

o clicker evaluation and usage: the SAC provided important input on how to count the clicker questions in the final course grade. The SAC and the teaching team all agreed to count the clicker scores as 10% of the final grade. They agreed to give every student a 20% free pass, so they counted a perfect student grade to be 80% of the total maximum score. In this way they allowed the students to miss a few classes without having to get permission. The SAC and faculty also worked together to establish the metrics for the clicker questions: 3 points for a correct answer, 1 point for an incorrect answer, and 0 points for no answer (absence).

o midterm exam length: largely based upon feedback from the SAC, the one-hour midterm exams (administered in class) were reduced in length from 18 questions to 14.

o balance of lecture, derivation, demo and problem solving: the SAC provides feedback about how the lecture period is used, and how to strike a balance among the different possible uses of the time.

o practice exams: based upon specific feedback from the SAC, a practice exam is now posted in advance of each midterm and the final.

62

o course coverage: the SAC advised the teaching team that a particular topic (kinematics) was not particularly well understood by the class. Together, the SAC and the faculty decided to devote more time to kinematics review (in PHYS 1425), and to shift some course content (waves and sound) to the next course (PHYS 2415).

The positive impacts of these changes can be measured using the course evaluation data. Student morale, engagement, and satisfaction are clearly higher, and a summary of course evaluation evidence is presented in Table 1. The data on Table 1 clearly illustrate that student perceptions about the course have improved in a non-trivial way. Taken together, the changes to the course in Spring 2009 have had a positive impact on the student experience, and students are much happier with the course than they previously were. Next, we look at learning outcomes in the course.

Table 1. Course Evaluation Summaries, 2005-2010.

Course/Time Period

# ho

urs s

pent

out

side

cl

ass p

er w

eek

I lea

rned

a g

reat

dea

l in

this

cla

ss*

This

was

a

wor

thw

hile

cou

rse*

The

inst

ruct

or w

as a

n ef

fect

ive

teac

her*

PHYS 1425

average, Spring 05-08 4.25 2.93 2.88 2.90

average, Spring 09-10 4.30 3.42 3.37 3.17

PHYS 2415

average, Fall 05-08 3.56 2.97 2.74 3.07

Fall 2009 3.00 3.54 3.45 3.44

* question scored on a 5-point Likert scale, 5 = strongly agree, 3 = neutral, 1 = strongly disagree

63

Learning Outcomes.

The previous structure of the course consistently produced exam averages in the 40%-range. Many would argue that it is difficult to determine whether learning outcomes have been met when faced with such low averages on the key evaluation metrics. The new structure for the course transparently aims for exam averages in the 70%-range. A before-and-after comparison of exam scores is a challenge because of the substantial difference in average scores (which clearly underlies a difference in philosophy). Instead, we will simply look at student performance in the two courses, PHYS 1425 from Spring 2010 and PHYS 2415 from Fall 2009.

Tables 2 and 3 show the course outcomes matrix for PHYS 1425 (Spring 2010) and PHYS 2415 (Fall 2009), respectively. The tables are constructed as follows. The key course content areas are listed in the first column. Then the graded material in the course (except for the clicker questions) is listed along the first row. An "x" in the matrix indicates that a particular course topic was covered on a particular homework set. A numerical value in the matrix corresponds to the class average performance on a particular topic on a specific exam. The last row shows the overall class average performance on each piece of graded work.

We feel comfortable that student achievement in the physics courses is completely acceptable. We make the following observations:

• Homework grades. The homework averages for the entire class are very strong, and this is a function of several issues. First, students have multiple submission attempts through WebAssign (10 submission attempts in all), so it makes complete sense that the average scores would be high. Perhaps more importantly, this data suggests that essentially all students are actually completing and submitting their homework. This equates to time on task and promotes engagement with the course material.

• Exam grades. Overall the exam grades are reasonable. On aggregate, the exam average across all exams in both courses is near 70%, which allows for a wider distribution of students grades, and also helps maintain reasonably healthy morale for students in the course. We conclude that students are attaining a level of proficiency with the material that is acceptable.

• Grades on Specific Items. There are, as always, specific topics which seem to give students more trouble than others. In PHYS 1425, rotational motion, torque, and angular momentum present challenges to the students. In PHYS 2415, students struggle with Gauss's Law and some elements of optics. Nonetheless, despite their difficulties with these individual topics, students are generally performing well and meeting the learning objectives of the course.

Conclusions and Future Actions.

64

Based upon this analysis of the recent changes to the physics course structure, staffing, and execution, we feel confident that the outcomes so far have been quite positive. The changes have improved student morale, as well as student self-perception of their understanding of the material and their engagement with the course. In addition, learning outcomes as measured by homework and exams also show evidence that students are learning the material and achieving at an acceptable level. Plans for further evaluation and action include:

• continue through several more cycles of PHYS1425-PHYS2415 using the current course structure and staffing; monitor the metrics such as course evaluation and students grades

• continue engaging the SAC to further explore positive changes to the course based upon student input

• examine exit interview and survey data from the Class of 2012--they will be the first class to have gone through physics under the new structure. Their feedback will be invaluable, and its comparison to historical data will reveal--in a more longitudinal way--student perceptions about the courses and how they prepare students for success later in the curriculum.

65

Table 2. Course Outcomes Matrix for PHYS 1425, Spring 2010.

x = coverage of that material on a homework set

numerical score = class average performance on that material on a particular exam

66

Table 3. Course Outcomes Matrix for PHYS 2415, Fall 2009.

x = coverage of that material on a homework set

numerical score = class average performance on that material on a particular exam

67

SEAS-wide improvements to APMA courses

Since the last ABET review, attention was focused on improving quality of APMA instructors, graduate teaching assistants and graders. Formerly, the instructors assigned by the MATH department in CLAS were post-docs and graduate students, and these instructors received very low ratings from the students. Professor Roberts, as Director of APMA programs, managed to make significant changes and qualified adjuncts who were focused on teaching undergraduates were brought in to teach these classes. The instructor ratings steadily increased over the last 6 years, and although still slightly below full-time Tenure Track Teaching faculty’s ratings, the ratings are above SEAS averages for 1st and 2nd year courses.

Professor Roberts also started the processes of examining the credentials of each student proposed as a TA in APMA, and he interviewed each one. The quality of the TAs for APMA increased substantially, and this process has continued with the current Director (Prof. Wood). The APMA instructors are generally very pleased with the TAs. Professor Roberts also managed to make being a grader for APMA classes a sought after job. The grader application is on the APMA website, and students submit their applications to the Director. This past year, the selected graders had GPAs greater than or equal to 3.5 and had a grade of A or A+ in the course to which they were assigned to grade.

In the classroom, some calculus instructors are using iclickers, which most of the students already have for their Physics courses. The iclicker allows the instructor to easily monitor attendance (very important for first year students) and to actively engage students in the lectures. This technology will be assessed at the end of the fall semester, but, based on early comments, I expect more instructors will use this technology over time. Another classroom change is the use of webassign, which is an internet product that is tuned to the calculus book we use. This was evaluated in the spring and will go into effect this fall. The calculus instructors will use this technology for homework and perhaps other applications. The webassign allows students to work on their homework and see immediately when they get the correct answers. The instructor can set home many attempts the students are allowed to get the correct answer. Based on limited data, this seems to very attractive to the students, and we will assess this technology at the end of the fall semester. Engineering in Community Settings: ENGR 2595 Professor Paxton Marshall has directed several community-based engineering projects that involve undergraduate engineering students and others under the course name ENGR 2595. This course provide students with an orientation to engineering within community settings, with particular emphasis on communities in developing areas outside of the United States, although underserved domestic communities will also be studied. The course will focus on equipping students with a broad range of technical and contextual knowledge through a combination of readings, case studies, discussions, guest presentations, group projects, and laboratory work. Students will study technologies aimed at meeting the basic human needs of water, air, food, shelter, household energy, and security. Topics will also include an overview of global health, research ethics and protocols, approaches to responsible and sustainable community engagement

68

and instruction on grant writing. The focus of several recent projects has been global sustainability.

Restructuring electives in EE, CpE and CS In response to student input the three sister programs have relaxed the requirements on some elective courses. Many students had expressed a desire to enhance their plan of study with a more flexible elective plan, perhaps to achieve a second major or to take more classes from the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences (CLAS) or the Commerce school. A large percentage of our students complete a major or minor in CLAS or in SEAS and almost half have declared an interest in the Engineering Business minor. To facilitate these interests, we have loosened the restrictions on several electives. In the computer engineering program, two technical electives were changed to unrestricted electives, bringing the number of unrestricted electives to 5. Prior to this change, the curriculum committee had been considering an increasing number of petitions for exceptions to the restrictions on electives. Student feedback on the exit survey in 2008 spurred us into action. The current computer engineering curriculum allows a full semester of courses (15 credits) to be (almost) unrestricted. Students in our program can now more easily accommodate their diverse interests and can combine a technically strong program with a desire to learn more about many different fields.

Once we gained approval for this change in computer engineering, computer science and electrical engineering soon followed with similar proposals. Both programs have converted technical electives to unrestricted electives.

Improving GTA assignments in ECE The assignment of graduate teaching assistants (GTA) to undergraduate labs is a difficult process that requires balancing the needs of the undergraduate program with those of the graduate program. Generally our GTAs are first year graduate students who have not yet been “matched” with a research advisor or project. These GTAs are generally high achievers with excellent skills, but it is not always clear which GTAs are best suited to work with which classes. GTAs do not teach classes; most GTAs are assigned lab duties, where they are expected to work with undergrads in the lab. To facilitate the assignment of GTA to lab class, and to identify gaps in their preparation for GTA tasks, the ECE department now requires that GTAs take a diagnostic exam to help identify their strengths and weaknesses. The exam is a simple 10-question exam that can reveal their comfort with basic concepts and lab apparatus. The results of the exam are used as an input to the GTA assignment process and are used to alert faculty to perceived gaps in student preparation. The faculty then can work with the GTA to ensure that they are adequately prepared to assist the students in the lab.

Technology Leaders Program (TLP) The Technology Leaders Program is an interdisciplinary undergraduate program focused on developing engineering leaders who can bring both a top-down systems perspective and bottom-up component perspective to the problems they face… problems that are increasingly complex and require solutions that are agile enough to respond to changing needs.

Students in the TLP gain foundational knowledge from both systems and information engineering (SIE) and electrical and computer engineering (ECE) in route to a majoring in one of

69

these fields. In addition, they gain multiple opportunities to integrate their knowledge of these two fields through hands-on TLP courses, the TLP Learning Community, and internships with TLP partner companies. The TLP is only open to students majoring in systems, electrical, and computer engineering.

The TLP is a major initiative that was created in response to two primary constituents: graduate schools and industry. Graduate programs and industries that focus on integrating electrical and computer technology into systems found that graduates from the SE program came prepared with skills aimed at integration but were unfamiliar with different technology (e.g., sensors, processors) and how to work with them. The same constituents found electrical and computer engineering graduates to be too focused on minute details of the technology and not able to see how to weight trade-offs and apply such technology into useful, integrated systems.

The curriculum of the TLP is as follows:

• 2nd year: students gain disciplinary grounding in systems, electrical and computer engineering through taking existing courses from each major (the courses for EE and CpE are common)

• 3rd year: students take two new TLP courses focused on short, authentic design experiences where they get to integrate skills from both SE and ECE.

• 4th year: students participate in a client-supported capstone project that requires the integration of both SE and ECE skills and knowledge

Throughout, the students will participate in the TLP Learning Community, which meets every other week of every term. In the TLP Learning Community, the focus is on developing leadership skills, career skills, and a sense of belonging among the TLP students. In addition, all TLP students must complete an internship prior to graduation.

The TLP has support from the National Science Foundation and the Center for Advanced Engineering Research. A new undergraduate lab has been developed for the TLP. A new TLP section of ENGR 1620, Introduction to Engineering, was created in Fall 2008. Two new third year “design clinic” TLP courses will debut in the 2010-11 academic year. The first cohort of fifteen students enrolled in the TLP in Fall 2009. Of the fifty-two students who applied to be part of the Fall 2010 cohort, twenty-seven were offered admittance into the TLP and twenty-four accepted the offer. In short, student demand is high.

Improvements to individual classes In the remainder of this section, we will highlight a few recent changes that faculty have made to their individual classes.

Prof. Calhoun joined the ECE faculty in 2006 and has made several changes to enhance the integrated circuit design portion of the curriculum for undergraduates. At that time, the VLSI course (ECE 563, Introduction to VLSI) was identical for both graduate and undergraduate students, but enrollment of undergraduates was low (e.g. 4-6). Prof. Calhoun split the ECE 563 class into separate graduate (ECE 6332) and undergraduate (ECE 4332) courses and introduced a new prerequisite course (ECE 3663, Digital Integrated Circuits) to better prepare undergraduates for ECE 4332. ECE 4332 became a 4.5 credit class that includes a semester long IC design

70

project that satisfies the MDE requirement for the EE program. Enrollment in ECE 3663 has been at or above 20, and enrollment in ECE 4332 has grown to ~10-20.

In Fall 2009 for CS 4610 (Programming Languages), we introduced a two-credit compilers practicum side course (officially an independent study, CS 4993, with Prof. Wes Weimer). Students, at their option, could sign up for this course and complete an additional detailed project related to compiler construction (e.g., writing a code generator and optimizer). 26 students took CS 4610; 23 of them took this additional compilers practicum. The motivation for creating this extra sidelight was two-fold: one, schools

like Cornell offer a 3 credit + 2 credit theory and practicum sequence for compilers; two, we haven't offered compilers for a while and I wanted students to get the chance to learn the material. We plan to continue this the next time CS 4610 is offered.

Web Information Systems Engineering was taught for the first time in the fall of 2009 to specifically give students exposure to web service software systems. This course expanded upon current course offerings by targeting emerging development techniques in industry with regards to web software systems and mobile software platforms. Students built projects that combined PHP and Java web services with Windows Mobile phones.

In CS 4753 Electronic Commerce Technologies, a course project was added in which students build a social networking website, Artist eXchange, that allows artists to post their own work (e.g., music, video) and to review and provide commentary on the works of others. A suite of automatic tests determines whether the resulting website meets its requirements and whether the authors have protected it from the most common electronic attacks (e.g., buffer overflow, SQL injection).

ECE 3250 is the study of electromagnetic/electromechanical energy conversion. Topics covered include AC phasor analysis, polyphase circuits, A.C machines, and transformers. In the past transformers have been considered only on the basis of analysis and measurement. Prof. Powell added a section in the course where transformer design is considered. This is attractive, as the design involves optimization of the amount of copper and iron employed. In addition, as part of the design process, the transformer model and expected performance are predicted. Students are given a performance specification that must be met – usually efficiency – with a conflicting constraint of minimizing the overall size of the device. This is very typical of a real world problem, yet basically relies on very fundamental principles of electromagnetism, so it is useful both as an educational tool as well as exposure to realistic engineering problems typical of that found in industry. Designs are due on the last class day before spring break. Prof. Powell selects the best overall design and has several copies manufactured at a nearby prototype shop during break. After spring break, the manufactured devices are tested in the lab both to verify performance and to check on the accuracy of the predicted device model. Students are expected to assess the implications of the limitations of the model.

ECE4907 is the ECE Major Design Experience class for the EE program; some computer engineering students take it as an elective (in addition to the MDE that is required for computer engineering). Students are expected to take a design from the inception stage all the way to a working prototype. Besides reviews of fundamental ECE principles and subjects, students are taught simple printed circuit design and manufacturing techniques. Among the weaknesses that have been encountered in 4th year engineering students is a lack of debugging skills and the development of logical test procedures. Prof. Powell implemented a series of lectures and exercises in which we introduce the concept of design-for-test and design-for-manufacture.

71

Students are expected to predict the expected signals observed at all points in the circuit of their design, and to incorporate this knowledge in the development of a test strategy. As part of the midterm design review and final presentations, students present a detailed test and debugging strategy outline in the form of a decision tree. Additionally, students develop skills in making a design testable through the proper use of test points or other access devices which are intended to expose the inner workings of the design.

72

CRITERION 5. CURRICULUM

A. Program Curriculum

Curriculum supports program objectives The electrical engineering degree program prepares students for a professional career and further study in the discipline via a curriculum that requires 128 credit hours of coursework. The curriculum contains several aspects: the first year common core (before the major is declared), required foundational and advanced courses (including the major design experience (MDE)), major elective courses, STS (science, technology & society) courses (which includes the senior thesis), HSS (Humanities and social sciences) electives and unrestricted (free) electives. The program is quite flexible and contains a total of 21 elective courses in various categories (major, HSS, STS and unrestricted), including two lab electives. During the first year of study all engineering students enroll as undifferentiated engineering students. Students select their major at the end of the first year. Once students are part of the EE program they choose from a set of required courses, restricted electives and unrestricted electives.

Electrical Engineering Curriculum Summary

Major Major credits 55 Math Credits 18

CS1110 Intro Computer Science

3 APMA1110 Single Variable Calculus

4

APMA2120 Multivariable Calculus 4 CS2110 Software Devlpmnt Meth

3

APMA2130 Ordinary Diff EQ 4

3 APMA3100 Probability 3 CS/ECE2330 Digital Logic Design MATH Elective (2000 or above) 3

ECE2630 Intro Crct Analysis 3

ECE3209 Electromagnetic Fields

3 SEAS requirements 55

ECE3630 Electronics I 4 STS1010 Intro Lang, Comm & Tech 3

ECE3750 Signals & Sys I 3 STS2-- STS elective (2000 or above) 3

CS/ECE3330 Comp. Architecture 3 STS4500 STS & Engineering Practice 3

STS4600 Engr Ethics Prof Respnsblty 32 TECH Tech electives (3000 or above)

6

CHEM1610 Intro Chem. Engineers & Lab 4

ENGR1620 Introduction to Engineering 4ECE 4907 Major Design Experience

3

SCI Science Elective 3

PHYS1425 Physics I & Lab 46 ECE ECE electives (300 or above)

18

PHYS2415 Physics II & Lab 4

2 ECE Labs ECE lab electives 3 3 HSS HSS electives 9

5 UE Unrestricted electives 15

Table 1. Summary of the electrical engineering curriculum

73

The electrical engineering curriculum supports the PEO as described in Table 2.

Program Educational Objective Aspects of Curriculum that supports this part of the PEO

Graduates of the Electrical Engineering program at the University of Virginia utilize their academic preparation to become successful practitioners and innovators in electrical engineering and other fields.

• Major foundational courses

• Advanced courses and electives in major

• Major design experience

• STS courses

• HSS courses

• Unrestricted electives

They analyze, design and implement creative solutions to problems with electrical and electronic devices and systems.

• Major foundational courses

• Advanced courses and electives in major

• Major design experience

They contribute effectively as team members, • Major design experience

• STS courses

They communicate clearly • STS courses

• HSS electives

They interact responsibly with colleagues, clients, employers

• STS courses

They interact responsibly with society. • STS courses

• HSS courses

Table 2. The electrical engineering curriculum supports the PEO

Curriculum meets ABET minimum requirements

Table 5-1 shows how the electrical engineering curriculum meets the ABET criterion for credit hours and distribution. Please note that course numbers changed recently from 3-digits to 4. Both the new and the old numbers are listed in this table.

74

Table 5-1 Electrical Engineering Curriculum

Category (Credit Hours)

Other

Year;

Semester or

Quarter Course

(Department, Number, Title)

Math & Basic

Sciences

Engineering Topics

Check if Contains

Significant Design ( )

General Education

APMA 1110 (was APMA 111)

Single Variable Calculus II 4

CHEM 1610 & 1611 (was 151)

Introductory Chemistry for Engineers & Lab

4

ENGR 1620 (was 162)

Intro Engineering 4 ( )

Semester 1

STS 1500 (was 101)

Science, Technology, and Contemporary Issues

3

APMA 2120 (was 212)

Multivariable Calculus 4

PHYS 1425 & 1429 (was 142)

General Physics I & Workshop 4

CS 1110 (was 101)

Introduction to Programming 1 2

Science Elective (from list) 3

Semester 2

HSS (Humanities & Social Sciences) elective

3

APMA 2130 (was 213)

Ordinary Differential Equations

4

CS 2110 (was 201)

Software Development Methods

3 ( )

PHYS 2415 & 2419 (was 241)

General Physics II & Workshop

4

Semester 3

ECE 2630 (was 203)

Introductory Circuit Analysis

3

75


3

Math Elective 3

ECE/CS 2330 (was 230)

Digital Logic Design

3

ECE 2660 (was 204) Electronics I

4 ( )

Unrestricted Elective 3

Semester 4

STS elective 3

ECE Elective 3

ECE 3209 (was 309)

Electromagnetic Fields

3

ECE 3750 (was 323)

Signals & Systems I

3

Unrestrictive Elective 3

Semester 5


APMA 3100 (was 310)

Probability

3

CS/ECE 3330 (was 333)

Computer Architecture

3

ECE elective 3


3

Semester 6

Tech Elective 3

STS 4500 (was 401 or 4010)

STS and Engineering Practice

3

ECE Elective 3

ECE Elective 3

ECE Elective 3

ECE Lab elective 1.5 ( )

Semester 7


Semester 8 STS 4600 (was 402 or 4020)

The Engineer, Ethics &

3

76

Professional Responsibility

ECE4907

Major Design Experience

3 ( )

ECE Elective 3

ECE Lab elective 1.5 ( )

Tech Elective 3


TOTALS-ABET BASIC-LEVEL REQUIREMENTS

33 54 21 20

OVERALL TOTAL FOR DEGREE

128

PERCENT OF TOTAL 26 42 16 16

Totals must Minimum semester credit hours 32 hrs 48 hrs

satisfy one set

Minimum percentage 25% 37.5 %

77

Major Design Experience

The major design experience (MDE) for the electrical engineering program is fulfilled by ECE4907. Section 01 is the main section of this course. Students can enroll in other sections of the MDE course (ECE 4907-02, ECE4907-02 etc, which must be taught by the ECE faculty) if the section meets the following criteria:

1. The course must be focused on a semester-long major design project that addresses a real-world engineering problem.

2. Each student must be a member of a team of at least 3 members. 3. A written project proposal should address a) the problem statement, b) the requirements

and c) formal specifications. 4. At least one oral presentation should be given by each student during the semester. 5. The project will have a final written report. The report should address considerations and

constraints in of the following types: economic, environmental, sustainability, manufacturability, ethical, health & safety, social and political (as mandated by ABET).

6. The final report (or earlier report) should also provide a detailed design and discussion of tradeoffs, as well as design validation and verification.

Examples of other sections of the MDE course are projects such as the solar house and the Bluetooth competition. ECE 4435 and ECE 4440, which satisfy the MDE requirement of the CpE program, are accepted as the MDE course for EE majors.

Components of the Curriculum

Humanities and Social Sciences Electives All SEAS programs require three electives in this area and the selection of these courses by the student is governed by a set of requirements prepared by the Dean’s Office. The University of Virginia offers a tremendous number of courses for all branches of the humanities and social sciences so there is a wide selection for the student. The Engineering Dean’s Office publishes a detailed list of courses that can and cannot be used to meet this requirement. The choice of elective courses is made in consultation with the student’s academic advisor.

Humanities and Social Sciences 3 courses; 9 elective credits

Unrestricted Electives All SEAS programs allow at least three unrestricted (actually there are a few restrictions) electives and again the choice of these courses is governed by a set of requirements prepared by the Engineering Deans’ Office. Essentially, an unrestricted elective may be any graded course in

78

the University except level-1 mathematics and any other courses that substantially duplicate courses offered for the degree. The choice of elective courses is made in consultation with the student’s academic advisor.

Unrestricted Electives 5 courses; 15 elective credits

Required Science and the Science Elective The physical science sequence includes chemistry and a two-course sequence in general physics that takes the student from classical mechanics to electromagnetic waves. The chemistry course and the physics courses also contain a 1-credit laboratory each. The curriculum also requires a science elective that must be chosen from a list of courses approved by the engineering school. The list includes biology, chemistry, physics, materials science, and information science (ECE 2066 Science of Information).

Chemistry for Engineers 4 required credits

General Physics 8 required credits

Science Elective 3 elective credits

Applied Mathematics and Probability Mathematics courses in the engineering school are prefixed by APMA (Applied Math) and are taught both by faculty from the engineering school and from the mathematics department. Since most students come to UVa with AP credit for Calculus I, our curriculum begins with Calculus II. Students who need to can take Calculus I as an unrestricted elective. The two-course calculus sequence takes the student through to partial differentiation, multivariate and vector calculus, and multiple integrals. A course in ordinary differential equations covers linear algebra, systems of ordinary differential equations and Laplace transforms. A course in probability is required; this course is a calculus-based introduction to probability theory and includes an introduction to statistical inference (sample statistics, parameter estimation, hypothesis testing, confidence intervals). Additionally, a Math elective is required for all students in the EE program.

Calculus 8 required credits

Differential Equations 4 required credits

Probability 3 required credits

Math Elective 3 required credits

Introduction to Engineering This is a required course for first-year engineers introducing aspects of engineering computation, visualization, computer applications in engineering design, and optimization. The course also includes an introduction to the engineering design cycle

79

and team design projects that feature conceptual design, analytical design, and design and build activities.

Introduction to Engineering 4 required credits

Science, Technology and Society (STS) and the Senior Thesis The engineering school at UVA is fortunate to include the Department of Science, Technology and Society. STS was founded over sixty years ago to research into the complex relationships between technology and society, and in particular the role of the engineer as a principal shaper of the technological world. In teaching, STS seeks to guide students to act as ethically responsible professionals serving diverse social interests and to develop students’ capacities for critical thought and self-reflection. STS courses contribute to the development of the ABET Criterion 3 (d)-(j) outcomes and focus on students' skills in communicating their expertise in a range of genres to a broad spectrum of audiences. STS courses help develop foundational skills that are essential to the ability to work in teams.

Engineering students are required to take four STS courses:

Science, Technology, and Contemporary Issues 3 required credits

STS and Engineering Practice 3 required credits

The Engineer, Ethics & Professional Responsibility 3 required credits

STS Elective 3 elective credits

The two-course sequence, STS and Engineering Practice (STS 4500) and The Engineer, Ethics & Professional Responsibility (STS 4600), are also the vehicle through which the senior thesis is coordinated. The undergraduate thesis was implemented in the engineering school at UVA in 1906 and made required of all engineering students in their final year before graduation. The undergraduate thesis project is designed to give students first hand experience with the communication of technical information, the ideas and values that shape technology, the role of individuals and organizations in innovation, the role of technology in solving problems, the impact of technology on society, and the ethical issues in engineering.

Each thesis is reviewed and approved by a technical adviser and by the students' 4500 and 4600 professors. Over the two courses (4500 and 4600), the undergraduate thesis project serves as a case study in a range of cultural and ethical issues. In STS 4500, students step back and consider the broader context of technology and science in Western civilization, and what constitutes scientific and technological progress, focusing especially on ethical and cultural dimensions. In STS 4600, students are encouraged to develop an understanding of the engineer's role in society and the role of ethical issues and ideals in engineering. The engineering thesis is used as the particular focus for the issues discussed in these classes.

The thesis can take one of several forms, including:

• Designing a device, process, or program.

80

• Verifying a theory by experimental investigation.

• Deriving a theoretical explanation for a hitherto unsatisfactorily explained phenomenon.

• Evaluating and interpreting the state of the art in a technical and scientific field, and examining its significance for society.

Students are permitted to use the major design experience as the thesis topic but this is not required and many students choose to focus the thesis on experimental, theoretical, or research work.

Electrical Engineering Courses and Electives The electrical engineering program requirements include a set of fundamental courses in electrical engineering, six ECE electives and the MDE course. The fundamental courses are Introductory Circuits Analysis (ECE 2630), Electronics I (ECE 2660), Digital Logic Design (ECE 2330), Computer Architecture (ECE 3330), Signal and Systems I (ECE 3750), and Electromagnetic Fields (ECE 3209). A set of six criteria were defined for the MDE course. ECE 4907 was developed to meet these criteria. Individual faculty member can develop separate sections of ECE4907 to tails to the interest of different group of students. All such separate sections must satisfy the six MDE criteria. ECE 4435 and ECE 4440, which satisfy the MDE requirement of the CpE program, are also accepted as the MDE course for EE majors. In the third and fourth years, students select a set of 6 ECE electives. These electives are selected in consultation with the advisor and can be any (3000 or 4000 – level) course offered by the ECE faculty. Some 4th year classes require additional prerequisites, so students are encouraged to look ahead to their 4th year when selecting their 3rd year courses.

Materials available for review Materials that have been gathered for display include the traditional binders which contain samples of student work (homework, labs, tests, etc) arranged by course. That is, there is a separate binder for each required course that was taught in the last year. In these binders the reviewers can see how a particular course is implemented and how the students demonstrated knowledge and learning. There will also be a binder of materials related to PEO evaluation and a set of binders showing the assessment and evaluation results specific to each outcome. Another binder will contain the summary program assessment reports. Samples of student major design experience project reports will also be available.

In addition to the program-specific materials described above, the Science Technology & Society Department will provide sample materials and assessment reports for their course. These will be housed at a central location along with materials from applied math, physics and chemistry.

81

B. Prerequisite Flow Chart

C. Course Syllabi

In appendix A.

82

Table 5-2a. Course and Section Size Summary

SEAS CORE CLASSES

Course No. Title

Responsible Faculty Member

No. of Sections

Offered in Current Year

Avg. Section Enrollment Lecture1 Lab1 Other1

APMA 1090 Single Variable Calculus I Houston Wood Fall: 2 Spring: 1

58 75% 25% recitation

APMA 1110 Single Variable Calculus II Houston Wood Fall: 5 Spring: 4


APMA 2120 Multivariable Calculus John Maybee Fall:5 Spring: 6


APMA 2130 Ordinary Differential Equations

Bernard Fulgham

Fall: 5

Spring: 6


APMA 3080 Linear Algebra Houston Wood Fall: 3 Spring: 3

51 100%

APMA 3100 Probability Bernard Fulgham

Fall: 3

Spring: 3

39 100%

APMA 3110 Applied Statistics & Probability

John Maybee Fall: 3

Spring: 2

77 100%

APMA 3210 Statistics Houston Wood Fall: 2 Spring: 1

48 100%

CHEM 1610 Chemistry for Engineers I (& Lab)

Robert Burnett Fall: 3 366 (lecture)

100 (lab)

75% 25%

CHEM 1620 Chemistry for Engineers II (& Robert Burnett Spring: 2 348 (lecture) 75% 25%

83

Lab) 65 (lab)

CS 1110 Introduction to Programming (closed lab)

Tom Horton Fall:1 (4 lab)

Spring: 2 (11 lab)

176 (lecture)

35 (lab)

67% 33%

CS 1111 Introduction to Programming (open lab)

Jim Cohoon Spring: 1 72 67% 33%

CS 1112 Introduction to Programming (open lab)

Jim Cohoon Fall 1

Spring: 1

66

67% 33%

ECE 2066 Science of Information Michael Reed Fall: 1 (2 lab) Spring: 1 (4 lab)

55 (lecture)

18 (lab)

75% 25%

ENGR 1620 Introduction to Engineering George Cahen Fall: 16 (3 lab) 36 (lecture)

195(lab)

75% 25%

ENGR 2500 Introduction Nanoscience and Technology

John Bean Fall: 1 Spring: 1

31 (lecture)

8 (lab)

50% 50%

MSE 2090 Intro Science and Engineering of Materials

Rob Kelly Fall: 2

Spring: 4

61 100%

PHYS 1425 General Physics I (& lab) Steve Thornton

Spring: 3 159 (lecture)

22 (lab)

75% 25%

PHYS 2415 General Physics II (& lab) Steve Thornton

Fall: 3 138 (lecture)

23 (lab)

75% 25%

STS 1010/1500

Engineering , Technology & Society

Kay Neeley Fall: 1 (discussion: 12)

Spring: 1 (discussion 10)

223 (lecture)

19 (discussion)

100% seminar

84

STS 2500 Topics in Technology and Society

Deborah Johnson

Fall: 8 Spring: 5

32 100% seminar

STS 4010/4500

Western Technology & Culture

Bryan Pffafenberger

Fall: 14 Spring: 1

32 100% seminar

STS 4020/4600

The Engineer, Ethics and Society

Bryan Pffafenberger

Fall: 1

Spring: 18

29 100% seminar

85

Table 5-2b. Course and Section Size Summary

Electrical Engineering

Course No. Title

Responsible Faculty Member

No. of Sections

Offered in Current Year

Avg. Section

Enrollment Lecture1 Lab1

CS 2110 Software Development Methods

Mark Sherriff Fall:2 (lab: 5) Spring: 1 (lab: 3)

100

(38 lab)

75% 25%

CS/ECE 2330 Digital Logic Design Joanne Dugan Fall:1 (7 lab)

Spring: 1 (12lab)

94 (10 lab) 80% 20%

CS/ECE 3330 Computer Architecture John Lach Fall:1 (6 lab)

Spring: 1 (5 lab)

85 (15 lab) 75% 25%

ECE 2630 Intro Circuit Analysis Archie Holmes F:1 (6 lab) 104 (35 lab) 80% 20% ECE 2660 Electronics I Travis Blalock Spring: 1 (6 lab) 80 (13 lab) 75% 25% ECE 3103 Solid State Devices Lloyd Harriott Spring: 1 23 100% ECE 3209 Electromagnetic Fields Bobby Weikle Fall: 1 41 ECE 3250 Electromechanical Energy

Conversion Harry Powell Spring: 1 (3 lab) 17 (6 lab) 50% 50%

ECE 3632 Electronics II Travis Blalock Spring: 1 (2 lab) 18 (9 lab) 67% 33% ECE 3663 Digital Integrated Circuits Ben Calhoun Spring: 1 21 100% ECE 3750 Signals & Systems I Maite Brandt-

Pearce Fall: 1 78 100%

ECE 3760 Signals & Systems II Maite Brandt-Pearce

Spring: 1 25 100%

ECE 4155 IC circuit Fabrication & Lab Nathan Swami Spring: 1 (2 lab) 15 (8 lab) 67% 33% ECE 4209 RF circuit design & Wireless

systems Bobby Weikle Spring: 1 (2 lab) 18 (9 lab) 67% 33%

ECE 4265 Microwave Engineering & Lab Scott Barker Spring: 1 11 67% 33% ECE 4332 Intro VLSI Design Ben Calhoun Fall: 1 32 67% 33% ECE 4435 Computer Organization and

Design Ron Williams Fall: 1 (4 lab) 48 (12 lab) 67% 33%

ECE 4440 Advanced Digital Design Mircea Stan Spring: 1 39 67% 33% ECE 4641 Bioelectricity Yong Kim Fall: 1 41 100% ECE 4710 Communications & Lab Steve Wilson Fall: 1 15 67% 33% ECE 4850 Linear Control Systems & Lab Gang Tao Fall: 1 4 67% 33% ECE 4860 Digital Control Systems & Lab Zongli Lin Spring: 1 3 67% 33% ECE 4907 EE Projects (MDE) Harry Powell Fall: 1 25 50% 50%

86

CRITERION 6. FACULTY

A. Leadership Responsibilities The ECE department chair is Professor Lloyd Harriott. The chair’s responsibility is basically to ensure that the academic mission of the department, as directed by its faculty, is achieved. To that end, the following specifics stand out:

• Assignment of teaching loads • Assignment of advising duties • Assignment of committees and their charges • Management and annual evaluation of staff • Developing the department’ budget, and overseeing its implementation • Interacting with visitors and alumni, and supporting the dean in his interactions with

the same • Representing the department during the Open House; arranging the majors Night

presentations for both majors • Overseeing the technicians • Selection of the Industry and External Relations Advisory Board members and

running the annual meetings of the board • Scheduling faculty meetings and developing the agenda • Annual evaluation of the faculty • Organization of the Promotion and Tenure process: a meeting in the spring to discuss

all faculty below the rank of full professor, and identifying those who merit a review for promotion and tenure. Assigning readers to various cases. Compilation of the promotion dossier and the writing of the detailed nomination letters for the eventual candidates.

• Assignment of the TA’s to the courses, as well as the final decision on GTA funding and fellowships (most of this is done by the Graduate Director).

B. Authority and Responsibility of Faculty The faculty of the University own the curricula, and set the academic standards. In particular the key responsibilities are identified, and explained below.

• Course Actions. the faculty member or members proposing the new or revised courses, develop a proposal to the program’s undergraduate curriculum committee. After approval, the faculty member(s) present the proposal to the ECE and CS faculty as a whole during a faculty meeting. Approved course actions are sent to the SEAS undergraduate curriculum committee (UCC) for approval. The proposals are also shared with the department chairs, by the associate dean for undergraduate studies. The latter action is for information only. Approved actions by the SEAS committee are broadcast to the SEAS faculty as a whole. If there are no objections, then the actions are approved and implemented. If there are objections, then the matter will be brought back to the UCC and, if necessary, discussed at a SEAS faculty meeting.

• Promotion and Tenure. In ECE we have adopted the broadest interpretation of the SEAS policy: every faculty member above a given rank will vote on the promotion and tenure decisions affecting every other faculty member below their rank. Being that promotion can be separate from tenure, all General Faculty (those whose primary

87

duties are teaching or research) also participate in the process fully. When the department decides to proceed with promotion or tenure for a given faculty member, the next stage is the SEAS Promotion and Tenure Committee which is the advisory group to the dean. After that rigorous stage, the Provost’s office performs a final review. This review too is quite rigorous and not automatic. All three stages consider on the quality of teaching, mentoring and advising. Research productivity alone is not sufficient for promotion.

• Curriculum. The faculty owns the curriculum. We separate this item form Course Actions to show its importance. The process stages are similar to course action but involves more discussion and analysis.

• Program Educational Objectives and Program Outcomes are owned by the faculty of the two departments. Some Program Outcomes are the responsibility of faculty in STS and APMA and are overseen by the SEAS UCC.

C. Overview of the Faculty The faculty of the computer engineering program are members of either the ECE or CS department; there are no faculty exclusively associated with the program, although some faculty are more closely associated with the program than are others. Table 6-1 contains the work-load distribution for the faculty of both departments. . There are large variations in the sizes of our courses: the graduate courses are typically small, the required undergraduate courses are quite large, and the elective undergraduate courses are reasonably sized. The chairs of the ECE and CS department determine the teaching loads for their faculty in consultation with the director of the computer engineering program. The teaching skills of our faculty are above the average for the School as evidenced by student course evaluations. Several of our faculty have won University-wide, State-wide and national teaching awards for their efforts. Three of our faculty (of we count the dean) are ABET Commissioners. Several faculty are PI or co-PI on National Science Foundation research grants relating to education.

D. Faculty Competencies As can be seen from the tables and CV’s of our faculty, there are some general statements that can be made about their qualifications and diversity in expertise. Each of our faculty members in the program holds a PhD degree. The backgrounds of our faculty members are diverse in respect to technical areas of interest. In ECE, they can be grouped into our main concentration areas of microelectronics, devices, signals and systems, communications, controls, and computer engineering. In CS they can be broadly grouped into the areas of computer architecture, graphics, security, theory computer science education, software engineering, networks and software systems. There is also considerable diversity of interest within the areas as well. Many of our faculty have held positions in industry as times during their career and bring that prospective to the program. In addition, many faculty participate in non-academic consulting. There is a considerable spread and balance in our time-in-term experience for our faculty. We have a good mix of faculty who have been in academia for many years and some who are newer to the academy.

All of our full-time tenure/tenure track faculty are actively involved in externally funded research in scholarly areas of interest. Our faculty are actively engaged with appropriate

88

professional societies. 12 of our faculty members are Fellows of IEEE and four are fellows of the ACM. Several of our faculty members serve on editorial boards and hold administrative committee assignments or equivalent in these societies. Many of our faculty members serve as conference organizers, session chairs, and committee members for various technical conferences in their fields.

E. Faculty Size and Student Interactions Although neither department is large, the student/faculty ratio is quite reasonable for all three programs (EE, CpE and CS). Almost all faculty advise undergraduates and the advising load is not excessive in most cases; most faculty advise about 10 undergraduates while a few carry (somewhat voluntarily) carry a heavier advising load. Some faculty are more heavily involved with the undergraduate programs, while others are more heavily involved with the graduate programs; most faculty are involved with both. Below are examples of specific interactions between faculty and undergraduates that are not otherwise included in this self-study

• Prof. Paxton Marshall directs student projects on sustainability and community service oriented activities. His students have won numerous awards for design, construction, energy auditing, and renovation of affordable, energy efficient housing incorporating renewable energy technologies. They also designed and implemented renewable energy systems for the Learning Barge, a floating environmental classroom for K-12 students in the tidewater Virginia region.

• Prof. Stephen Wilson led an undergraduate design team of EE's and CpE's to study feasibility of delivering internet access to remote regions, e.g. Guatemala, via satellite.

• Prof. John Lach typically has 2-4 undergrads working in his lab at any given time. Most work on projects related to body sensor networks, and some even get involved in data collection for human subjects medical studies.

• In Spring 2010, Prof. Malathi Veeraraghavan guided two undergraduate students in independent study courses in support of a DOE sponsored high-speed optical networking research project.

• Prof. Harry Powell's students have consistently placed in the finalists of both the Undergraduate Research and Design Symposium (URDS) and Undergraduate Research Network (URN) competitions, including first place in the URN in 2009.

• Prof. Scott Barker led a group of undergrads in the design and construction of a railgun. They received external funding from ARO for the purchase of supplies and they won 1st place in the URDS that year.

• Prof. Toby Berger mentored an exceptional undergraduate who matriculated in Fall 2007, received his bachelor's degree in Spring 2008, completed his masters degree with full research assistantship support in Spring 2009, and will begin PhD studies at Brown University in Fall 2010 funded by an NSF Fellowship.

• Probably the best overall indication of substantial interactions between faculty and undergrads is this: For undergraduates in computer science and electrical and computer engineering, the most prestigious award in the nation is winning the Outstanding Undergraduate Award from the Computer Research Association. From 1999 to 2009, U.Va. undergraduates won 31 CRA awards, ranking third behind Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Washington.

89

F. Faculty Development There are two are university-level resources available for faculty development:

• Teaching Resources Center (TRC) (http://trc.virginia.edu ) • The Office of Vice Provost for Faculty Recruitment & Retention (VPFRR)

(http://www.virginia.edu/vpfrr/ ) • Departmental mentorship

TRC From their website: The TRC began with the Provost's support and a Virginia State Council of Higher Education Funds for Excellence grant in 1990. The Center promotes academic professional excellence for faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students; encourages intellectual connections throughout the University of Virginia; and contributes to national and international conversations on learning, teaching, and professional development.

The Center strives for excellence in: • Building and nurturing cross-disciplinary communities and mentoring networks for

scholarly exchange around learning, teaching, and professional growth • Fostering student learning and effective teaching through creative, innovative, and

research-driven approaches, assessments, and technologies • Advancing and translating the scholarship of teaching and learning for the classroom and

beyond • Cultivating life-long learning for current and future faculty at all career stages

To realize its mission, Center faculty and staff develop world-class programs and collaborate with individuals and institutions across Grounds and around the world. The core belief of the Center are that the faculty care about student learning; they strive to be excellent teachers throughout their careers, they enjoy sharing best practices; interconnected teaching and research enrich each other; and peer and mentoring networks provide excellent vehicles for deep reflection and innovation. The Center offers confidential individual consultation, as well as workshops and programs helping build and sustain a community of scholars and dedicated teachers. Two programs that a number of the faculty has participated in are:

• University Teaching Fellowship Program: With summer grants and ongoing, interdisciplinary discussions, the University Teaching Fellows Program aims to help our most intellectually sound and successful junior faculty members develop into exceptionally fine teachers.

• Excellence in Diversity Fellowship Program: This Program offers incoming junior faculty one-year Fellowships to help them develop productive long-term careers at the University of Virginia. Originally funded by the Provost and by the Deans of Arts & Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the Program now receives permanent support from the University of Virginia.

VPFRR The office of VPFRR provides innovative career development programs and initiatives. Two key insights shape the purpose of this office: university excellence is predicated on a synergy between organizational goals and the professional and personal aspirations of a diverse faculty.

90

Faculty work is as much a way of living as it is a career choice. VPFRR programs and initiatives reflect these concerns. For example, this office annually sponsors 4-6 faculty advancement lectures and workshops wherein national scholars and experts discuss the priorities and challenges bearing on faculty recruitment, retention, and development. The series features opportunities for small group work and inter-departmental, cross-school participation.

The passion for scholarship, teaching, and service to others is often difficult to reconcile with the practical routines of career development, promotion and tenure, annual reviews, research grants, administrative responsibilities, the demands of committee and community work, and, of course, commitments to family and friends. The VPFRR partners with schools, offices, and programs at the university to provide mentoring and career development resources to faculty at different stages of their careers. These include year-long Chairs’ workshops; semester-long Leadership in Academic Matters workshops; dinner and dialogue events to encourage new and established faculty to meet across departments and schools; dual career advising, and occasional workshops geared to faculty needs.

The faculty of MAE works closely with the VPFRR on promoting diversity. Whereas only a handful of departments from across the University are participating in the development of our ADVANCE grant to the NSF, MAE has three faculty members (including the Chair) contributing at a leadership level.

Program Specific All ECE and CS faculty are actively involved in their continued professional development. The differences among them lie in the nature, extent and stage of this development. At one extreme, junior faculty members are busy cultivating and establishing professional contacts through activities on committees of the various societies and through collaborations with industry. At the other, senior faculty members have already developed their networks and are more active than the junior faculty in consulting and other professional activities. The professional interactions with industry are sometimes research-oriented, and sometimes lead to experimental, analytical or computational projects, some with considerable elements of design, involving undergraduate students. In addition, a number of faculty members have positions of leadership, or simply serve on, various committees of their professional societies.

The school’s Promotion and Tenure guidelines are quite clear on the expectation that professional aspects of a faculty member’s career is to be nurtured in parallel with teaching, research and service (http://www.seas.virginia.edu/admin/policies/fac_pt05.php). Continued professional development is also a factor encouraged in the department chair’s annual evaluation of the faculty.

Most of the activities above represent effectively zero cost to the departments. The university provides a very respectable level of service that benefits us. Notwithstanding, very limited funding for faculty professional development is available from the department’s overhead return on a case-by-case basis and is administered by the Chairs of the departments. Also very limited funding is available to offset part of the travel expenses of the faculty to meetings where they are the invited key-note speakers.

G. Faculty Resumes Appendix B includes an abbreviated resume for each program faculty member

91

Table 6-1. Faculty Workload Summary


Total Activity Distribution Faculty Member (All

are Full Time) % effort for EE

Classes Taught (Course No./Credit Hrs.)

2009 - 2010 TeachingResearch/Scholarly

Activity Service

Acton, Scott T. 100 ECE-5750 (3 ) ECE-5755 (1.5) ECE-6782 (3) 40 50 10 Barker, N. Scott 100 ECE-6261 (1.5) ; ECE-6505 (1); ECE-5260 (3); ECE-4265 (1.5); ECE-6265 (1.5 cr) 40 40 20 Bean, John C. 100 ECE-3103 (3) ECE-6501 (3); ENGR-2500 (3); ENGR-2500(3); ECE-4908 (3 cr) 40 40 20 Berger, Toby 100 ECE-6711 (3 cr) 30 50 20 Brandt-Pearce, Maite 75 ECE-3750 (3 cr) ECE-3760 (3 cr) ECE-6993 (3 cr) 40 40 20 Blalock, Travis N. 75 ECE 3632, (4), ECE 2660, (4) 40 40 20 Calhoun, Ben 75 ECE 3663, (3) ECE 4332, (4.5) ECE 6332, (3) 40 50 10 Campbell, Joe C. 100 ECE-5241 (3 cr) ECE-6642 (3 cr) 40 50 10 Dugan, Joanne B. 10 ECE/CS 4434, (3) ECE/CS 2330, (3) 40 20 40 Ghosh, Avik 100 ECE-6163 (3 cr) (Fall ’09); ECE-6502 (3 cr) (Spring ’10) 40 40 20 Gupta, Mool C. 100 ECE-5501 (3 cr) (Fall ’09); ECE-4908 (3 cr) (Spring ’10); ECE-6502 (3 cr) (Spring ’10) 40 50 10 Harriott, Lloyd R. 100 ENGR-1620 (4 cr) (Fall ’09); ECE-3103 (3 cr) (Spring ’10) 40 40 20 Holmes, Archie L. 50 ECE-2630 (4 cr) (Fall ’09); ENGR-1620 (3 cr) (Fall ’09) 40 50 10 Lach, John C. 50 ECE 2066, (3) ECE/CS 3330, (3) 30 60 10 Lin, Zongli 100 ECE-4860 (3 cr) ; ECE-6852/MAE-6620 (3 cr) 40 50 10 Marshall, P. Paxton 60 ENGR-2595 (3) ; ENGR-2595 (3) ; ENGR-4595 (3) ; ENGR-2595 (3) ; ENGR-4599 (3) 55 25 20 Reed, Michael L. 100 ECE-2066 (3 cr) ; ECE-2066 (3 cr) 40 40 20 Stan, Mircea R. 50 ECE 4440 (4.5), ECE 6502, (3) 40 40 20 Swami, Nathan 75 ENGR-1620 (4) ECE-5150 (3) ECE-4155 (1.5) ECE-4908 (3 ) ;ECE-6155 (1.5 ) 35 25 40 Tao, Gang 90 CE-4850 (3 cr) ; ECE-4855 (1.5 cr) ; ECE-6851/MAE-6610 (3 cr) 40 40 20

92

Veeraraghavan, Malathi 50 CS/ECE 4457 (3) 30 60 10 Weikle II, Robert M. 100 ECE-3209 (3 cr) ; ECE-4209 (3 cr) 40 50 10 Williams, Ronald D. 50 ECE 2330, (3) ECE 4435, (4.5) ECE 6435, (3) 40 40 10 Wilson, Stephen G. 100 ECE-4710 (3) ECE-4715 (1.5) ECE-6713 (3) ECE-4784 (3)ECE-4908 (3)ECE-6784 (3) 50 25 25

93

Table 6-2. Faculty Analysis


Years of Experience Level of Activity (high, med, low, none) in:

Name Ran

k Type of

Academic

Appointment

FT or PT H

ighe

st D

egre

e

Institution from which Highest

Degree Earned & Year G

ovt./

Indu

stry

Pr

actic

e

Tota

l Fac

ulty

This

Inst

itutio

n

Prof

essi

onal

R

egis

tratio

n/

Cer

tific

atio

n

Prof

essi

onal

Soci

ety

Res

earc

h

Con

sulti

ng

/Sum

mer

Wor

k in

Indu

stry

Acton, Scott T. Professor T FT Ph.D. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1993

5 16 10 None IEEE, IEEE SPS, SPIE High

High Low

Barker, N. Scott Assoc. Prof. T FT Ph.D. Univ. of Michigan, 1999

1 9 9 None IEEE Med High Low

Bean, John C. Professor T FT Ph.D. Stanford Univ., 1976 20 13 13 None IEEE, AVS Med High Low

Berger, Toby Professor NTT FT Ph.D. Harvard Univ., 1966 6 41 4 None IEEE, IEEE IT Society, Med

Med Low

Blalock, Travis N.

Assoc. Prof. T FT Ph.D. Auburn Univ., 1991 9 12 12 None (IEEE) Med. Med Med.

Brandt-Pearce, Maite

Professor T FT Ph.D. Rice University, 1993 4 17 17 None IEEE, COMSOC High

Med Med

Campbell, Joe C.

Professor T FT Ph.D. University of Illinois, 1973

15 21 4 Texas IEEE, APS High High Low

Calhoun, Ben Asst. Prof. TT FT Ph.D. MIT 2005 0 4 4 None Low (IEEE) High Low

Dugan, Joanne B.

Prof. T FT Ph.D. Duke Univ., 1984 1 26 17 None (IEEE) High Med Low

Ghosh, Avik Assoc. Prof. T FT Ph.D. Ohio State Univ., 1999

0 5 5 None IEEE, APS, MPS Med

High Low

Gupta, Mool C. Professor T FT Ph.D. Washington State Univ., 1973

16 18 5 None IEEE, MRS Low

High Med

94

Harriott, Lloyd R.

Professor T FT Ph.D. State Univ. of NY, Binghamton, 1980

21 10 10 None ASEE, AVS, Med

Med Low

Holmes, Archie L. Professor

T FT Ph.D. Univ. of Calif., Santa

Barbara, 1997 0 12 3 None IEEE Photonics Society, ASEE Med

High Low

Lach, John C. Assoc. Prof. T FT Ph.D. UCLA, 2000 0 10 10 None Med (IEEE) High Low

Lin, Zongli Professor T FT Ph.D. Washington State Univ.,Pullman, 1994

3 16 13 None IEEE Med High Low

Marshall, P. Paxton

Professor NTT FT Ph.D. Univ. of Chicago, 1979

1 27 23 None Low Low Med

Powell Jr., Harry C.

Instructor NTT PT M.S. Univ. of Virginia, 2006

30 4 4 None IEEE Low Low Low

Reed, Michael L.

Professor T FT Ph.D. Stanford University, 1987

3 23 13 None IEEE, IEP Med Med Med

Stan, Mircea R. Prof. T FT Ph.D. Univ. Mass. At Amherst, 1996

12 14 14 None (IEEE) High High Low

Swami, Nathan Assist. Prof. NTT FT Ph.D. Univ. of South. Calif., LA, 1999

6 6 6 None IEEE, MRS, ECS, ACS Med

High Low

Tao, Gang Professor T FT Ph.D. Univ. of Southern Calif., 1989

0 21 18 None IEEE, AIAA Med

High Low

Veeraraghavan, M.

Prof. T FT Ph.D. Duke Univ., 1988 13 9 7 None (IEEE) Low Med Low

Weikle II, Robert M.

Professor T FT Ph.D. California Institute of Technology, 1992

0 17 17 None IEEE, ARFTG, SPIE Med

High Med

Williams, Ronald D.

Assoc. Prof. T FT Ph.D. M.I.T., 1984 1 . 25 25 Virginia (IEEE) Med. High High

Wilson, Stephen G.

Professor T FT Ph.D. Univ. of Washington, 1975

8 34 34 None IEEE, ASEE Low

Med Low

95

CRITERION 7. FACILITIES

A. Space The C and E wings of Thornton Hall house the ECE department; these wings contain offices, classrooms and labs that are used by the electrical engineering and computer engineering programs.

The University of Virginia Engineering School’s Rice Hall Information Technology Engineering Building, will open in the fall of 2011, will serve collaborative researchers throughout the School of Engineering and Applied Science and across the Grounds. The building will make possible research in areas such as high-performance computing, computer visualization, information assurance, computer security, energy conservation, wireless communications, telemedicine, virtual reality, distributed multimedia and distance learning. With sophisticated technologies for heating, cooling and lighting, and including energy recovery systems, Rice Hall will function as a Living Laboratory on energy use.

Plans for the building include a 150 seat state-of-the-art auditorium, a Visualization Lab for Scientific Computing, a Computer Vision and Graphics Lab, and Engineering Projects lab (primarily for first year intro to engineering courses), facilities to support distance education, workrooms, study areas, conference rooms and flexible teaching and research labs. The 100,000 gross square feet, six story structure is scheduled for occupancy in fall 2011.

When complete, Rice Hall will house the CS department and about 1/3 of the ECE department.

1. Offices (Administrative, Faculty, Clerical, Teaching Assistants)

The administrative offices for the ECE department are in the C wing of Thornton hall and contains a suite of offices for the department chair and several administrative assistants. Several special offices are available in SEAS for teaching assistants to hold office hours; some teaching assistants hold office hours in the lab. Most graduate students have cubicles but they prefer to use these special TA offices when meeting with students to minimize disruption of their office mates. Faculty offices for the ECE department are located in the E and C wings of Thornton Hall. Faculty offices are adequate. The size of the offices varies, all have windows, reasonable furniture, lighting and network connections.

2. Classrooms

Classrooms are provided and maintained by the University. Classroom assignments are handled through the SEAS Dean’s office. The following table lists the SEAS classrooms, locations, seating capacity, room type, equipment type, number of exits, and size in square feet.

96

BUILDING ROOM CAPACITY ROOM EQUIP # OF SQ FT

NAME NO TYPE TYPE EXITS (ASF)

1 Chem Eng Research 005 70 A Level I 3 1185

2 Material Science 125 25 S None 1 548

3 Mech Engineering 205 150 A Level I 2 2365

4 Mech Engineering 214 46 L Level II 1 943



7 Mech Engineering 339 72 L Level I 2 1225

8 Mech Engineering 341 84 C Level I 2 1365

9 Mech Engineering 345 16 S * Note 1 322

10 Mech Engineering 347 16 S None 1 322

11 Olsson Hall 005 80 A Level I 2 1505




15 Thornton Hall D115 46 C Level I 1 699




19 Thornton Hall E303 100 L Level I 2 1665

20 Thornton Hall E304 46 L Level I 1 977

21 Thornton Hall E316 94 A Level I 2 1494

TOTAL: 23,965

A-Auditorium Base Room: Projector, equipment connections, VGA cable, controls, and sound

C-Classroom Level I: Base level plus PC, DVD, VCR and document camera

L-Lecture Hall Level II: Level I plus student computers

S-Seminar

*MEC 345 has large screen monitor only; BYO laptop.

97

3. Laboratories

Room Name Use in Fall Semester Use in Spring Semester

Thornton E 108

Circuits Lab ECE 2630 Circuits ECE 3660 Electronics II

ECE 2660 Electronics I

Thornton E 109

Prototyping Lab ECE 4907 & Special Projects

ECE 4908 & Special Projects

Thornton C 125 (Rear)

Power Lab ECE 3250 Electromechanical Energy Conversion

Thornton C 125

Digital Systems Lab ECE/CS 2330 Digital Logic Design

ECE/CS 3330 Computer Architecture

ECE/CS 2330 Digital Logic Design

ECE/CS 3330 Computer Architecture

Thornton C 125

(Rear)

Controls Lab ECE 4850 Linear Control Systems & Lab

Thornton C 125

Advanced Digital Systems Lab

ECE 4440 Advanced Digital Design

Thornton C 316

Communications Lab

ECE 4710 Communications & Lab

Cleanroom IC Fab lab ECE 4155 IC Fabrication & Lab

Olsson 002A Internet Engineering Lab

CS/ECE 4458 Internet Engineering

B. Resources and Support

Computing resources, hardware and software used for instruction The University computing environment consists of resources funded and maintained by the University’s central information technology organization - Information Technology and Communication (ITC), the School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS), individual departments, research labs and centers, and students.

The ITC organization focuses its efforts on key elements that are available to the University at large. They include the network backbone and telephone infrastructure, broadband cable and IP video, centralized data systems, high-performance research facilities, networked services including e-mail, central file storage, wired and wireless Internet access, web publishing, front-

98

line Help Desk support, training, R&D, public computing labs and classrooms, and specialized consulting.

SEAS resources include departmental computing labs and classrooms, the support of discipline specific software packages, school-wide and department computing support staff including full-time, part-time and graduate teaching assistants, networked services including file and print sharing, e-mail and web servers, and responsibility for hardware and software installation, troubleshooting and repair.

SEAS departments and research groups also collectively field over 250 workstations, peripherals such as high-speed printers, scanners and plotters, several clusters and workgroup servers featuring specialized, discipline-specific software. Access to this equipment and software is limited to students enrolled in the Engineering School's courses and research programs. Our students use these facilities for a variety of computing activities including course work, projects, capstone design, and senior thesis and graduate-level research.

UVa is undergoing a transition in basic, student computing. For more than two decades, UVa and the Library System hosted several hundred desktop PCs in open access, student computer labs. These labs were originally deployed in the era prior to students universally owning personal computers. The labs provide access to the leading office productivity suites for word processing, spreadsheets and presentation graphics, communications (e-mail, Unix connectivity, web browsers, ssh), statistical packages, engineering course-specific software (CAD, circuit design, GIS, etc.), programming language compilers, PC versions of math/engineering solver packages including Matlab, MathCAD, and Maple, and publishing utilities such as Adobe Acrobat.

Our students now have their own PCs. (SEAS has a laptop requirement for all incoming undergraduates.) An 'on-demand' service, also known as virtual labs, through which students will be able to mount specialty software from their own computers will replace these hosted desktop units. The 'on-demand' system will focus on the specialty software since students are able to obtain productivity suites through UVa's agreements such as the Microsoft Campus Agreement for free or a nominal fee. A distributed set of high-speed, B&W and color printers with page print charges that can be wirelessly accessed are also planned. This overall transition is expected to be completed by Fall 2011.

Despite this change, the CS department will continue to maintain two “instructional laboratories” where scheduled TA-led laboratory sections associated with software development courses are held. The largest of these two is Olsson Hall 001, a PC lab that can support up to 48 students per lab section. Courses with lab sections using this lab include:

• CS1110, Introduction to Computing (required for all SEAS students) • CS2110, Software Development Methods (required for CS, CpE and EE majors) • CS2150, Program and Data Representation (required for CS and CpE majors • CS3240, Advanced Software Development (required for CS and CpE majors)

The PCs in this lab are five-year-old Pentium D machines, with 3 Gb of memory and 19” LCD displays. They dual-boot Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux. (Windows 7 will be installed for Fall 2010.) Students use various software development languages, tools and environments on these machines. While primarily utilized for “closed” lab sections, students in these courses can also access these machines outside of scheduled section meetings.

99

A smaller lab is Olsson 002A, containing 13 similarly equipped PCs. This lab supports courses including CS4610, Operating Systems (for some instructors), which is a core course for CpE majors. These machines have also be used for some electives, including High-Performance and Parallel Computing and Computational Photography.

Most UVa spaces including classrooms, labs, study rooms, and dormitories have wireless Ethernet coverage. Dorm rooms also include wired Ethernet ports. Students also have on-grounds access to an authorized repair center for leading brands of computers and printers through UVa's computer reseller, Cavalier Computers.

Laboratory Equipment Acquisition, Maintenance and Upgrade The ECE department maintains teaching laboratories as earlier in this section. These facilities are maintained using state operation funds, departmental overhead funds, and the state’s equipment trust fund (ETF). For the latter, requests for major new equipment are made each year by the faculty and placed on a prioritized list by the department which is forwarded to the school. The amount of ETF funding varies from year to year as dictated by the state budget situation and priorities within SEAS. The table below shows ETF funding for each of the last three fiscal years.

Fiscal Year ETF funds for ECE Dept.

2007-2008 $74,152

2008-2009 $71,241

2009-2010 $51,119

Support Staff The ECE department has a supporting staff of a departmental administrator, fiscal technician, administrative assistants for graduate and undergraduate programs and two computer technicians. Instructional laboratory equipment is managed by Harry Powell, who also teaches several courses in our program. Cleanroom facilities are supported by a facilities manager and three technicians. The school provides computer support for the teaching and student computational laboratories, as well as technician support for minor maintenance and construction assistance. The University’s Information Technology and Communication Support is available for University-wide resources such as the instructional toolkit, e-mail, network services and others. Physical facilities are primarily the responsibility of the Division of Facilities Management, which performs or oversees major construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance work.

C. Major Instructional and Laboratory Equipment In Appendix C, include a list of major instructional and laboratory equipment.

100

CRITERION 8. SUPPORT

A. Program Budget Process and Sources of Financial Support The departments generally interpret the “budget” to mean the level of state support which they receive. This support consists of salary and other than personal services (OTPS) funds. State salary support ideally would be sufficient to support all tenured and tenure track (T3) faculty as well as any non-track teaching faculty for the nine month academic year. However that is not the case as the school relies on “academic year research buyout” to help balance its state budget. The school has a 12-month appointment policy which incentivizes faculty to provide 1.8 months of academic year support from research. Those faculty who can project this level of support for the approaching 12-month fiscal year, are placed on 12-month appointments and thereby receive retirement contributions for the entire 12-month year (instead of the usual 9-month academic year) and in addition an end-of-the-year bonus. The OTPS portion of state funding to the departments is determined by the size of the tenured and tenure track faculty ($4,500/T3 faculty). This level of support could be increased (and probably should be) if the school received sufficient state funding, but with the recent budget reductions it has not been possible to do so. In fact it has been difficult to maintain it at the current level.

B. Sources of Financial Support The school distributes state funds, returned research overhead, and graduate student financial aid to the departments. In addition, the departments may receive gift funds and endowment earnings, if they have any department-designated gift or endowment funds.

C. Adequacy of Budget State support has been reduced during the last several years. We have experienced budget reductions each year beginning in fall 07. The school was required to return a cumulative total of $3.9M over this period of time via the multiple budget reductions . The school state base in fall 07 (when the reductions began) was $25.7M, thus the cumulative reduction from this initial base has been 15%. However while we were returning state funds, we were also receiving some additional state funds such that the cumulative effect on state support was less than would otherwise have been the case and thus the state base for the approaching 10-11 academic year is currently projected to be about a million dollars less that the fall 07 base. However we are anticipating an increase in our state base for the 10-11 academic year through the addenda process. We will learn the extent of this increase during the early summer months but we anticipate our funding level to return to be more in line with the fall 07 level. In the meantime, the tenure and tenure track faculty headcount will have been reduced from 155 for the fall 07 semester to 139 for the fall 10 semester. This reduction in faculty size has resulted from a conscious effort to defer replacement of retiring and other departing faculty with only a few exceptions. The dean continues to make the case for increased school support with the university’s upper administration.

In addition to the state allocation ($4500/T3 faculty) which goes primarily to pay for telephones, copying charges and office supplies, the departments get some overhead return. Normally it is

101

about 9% of the overhead on dept grants but this past fiscal year, the dean cut it to 4.5% (50% reduction).

D. Support of Faculty Professional Development As discussed in the section concerning Criterion 6 Faculty, the university provides a very respectable level of service for professional development. Notwithstanding, very limited funding for faculty professional development is available from the department’s overhead return on a case-by-case basis and is administered by the Chairs of the departments. Also very limited funding is available to offset part of the travel expenses of the faculty to meetings where they are the invited key-note speakers.

E. Support of Facilities and Equipment For the last 20 years or so, the state has made funds available to the university via the Equipment Trust Fund (ETF) for replacement of obsolescent equipment and acquisition of new equipment. This program provides on average about $1.5M-2.5M annually to the school for this purpose. The university administers this system and allocates these fund to the schools. We will learn the amount of our allocation for the 10-11 year in the near future. We will then allocate these funds to the departments based on an algorithm which attempts to reward those departments that have been more productive in a number of teaching and research categories. This program is absolutely essential for the equipment-intensive engineering programs.

F. Adequacy of Support Personnel and Institutional Services The staff funded with state funds has remained level for many years. A case can be made that this support is not at the level it should be. Generally each department has a financial support specialist, one or two administrative/office specialists, and a computer support person on state funds. These individuals provide the minimum level of support necessary to department chairs to operate their departments. In addition, the dean’s office provides school-wide support to the departments in a centralized fashion, e.g., the undergraduate dean’s office includes two state supported administrative positions with a third temporary position. The departments might also have staff positions funded from other sources, e.g., returned research overhead. If the university decides to grow the undergraduate enrollment as is currently anticipated, staff as well as the teaching faculty can be expected to grow as well.

102

CRITERION 9. PROGRAM CRITERIA

The structure of the curriculum must provide both breadth and depth across the range of engineering topics implied by the title of the program.

The electrical engineering program at the University of Virginia provides breadth across the areas typically housed in an electrical engineering department. All students study circuits, electronics, signals and systems and electromagnetic fields. In the 3rd and 4th year, a series of electives allows students to study any of the following areas in depth: microelectronics, controls, communications, or digital systems, each with its sub-specialties. Because we are a somewhat small department, the total number of courses that we offer, while large enough to provide depth, is small enough to enforce breadth.

The program must demonstrate that graduates have: knowledge of probability and statistics, including applications appropriate to the program name and objectives; and knowledge of mathematics through differential and integral calculus, basic sciences, computer science, and engineering sciences necessary to analyze and design complex electrical and electronic devices, software, and systems containing hardware and software components, as appropriate to program objectives.

Students acquire a knowledge of probability ad statistics in the (poorly titled) course APMA 3100 Probability. This course includes about 3 weeks of study on statistical inference, including parameter estimation, confidence intervals and sample size, significance testing, and hypothesis testing. The subtitle of the text used in this course is “a friendly introduction for electrical and computer engineers.” And thus contains it applications appropriate to the discipline.

As described under Criterion 5, all electrical engineering students are required to complete mathematics through differential equations, one semester of chemistry and two of physics (basic sciences), a large number of computer science and engineering science courses.

They learn to analyze and design electrical and electronic devices in their circuits and electronics courses. They learn to analyze and design software in their 2 required software courses. They learn to analyze and design systems containing hardware and software in the 3rd and 4th year elective courses.

Programs containing the modifier “electrical” in the title must also demonstrate that graduates have a knowledge of advanced mathematics, typically including differential equations, linear algebra, complex variables, and discrete mathematics.

The electrical engineering program at the University of Virginia requires, in addition to the calculus through differential equations sequence a mathematics elective. Most students take linear algebra, complex variables or discrete math as this elective. Some take statistics or other math courses. In addition, several electrical engineering courses are mathematically-inclined: electromagnetic fields, signals and systems, communications and controls are math-heavy.

103

APPENDIX A. COURSE SYLLABI

Syllabi for all courses are included as a set of separate documents. One contains all syllabi for SEAS core courses (APMA, STS, physics, chemistry and ENGR). Another contains all the syllabi for the courses taught by the ECE department and CS department. These two (ECE and CS) are combined because several courses are cross-listed between the two departments.

APPENDIX B. RESUMES

Resumes for all ECE faculty who teach in the program are included in an appendix as a separate document.

APPENDIX C. LABORATORY EQUIPMENT begins on the next page.

APPENDIX D. INSTITUTIONAL APPENDIX

The institutional appendix (common to all programs) is included as a separate document.

104

APPENDIX C. LABORATORY EQUIPMENT

1. Circuits Laboratory: The primary undergraduate circuits laboratory is Room E108. It consists of 8 lab benches, each equipped with the following complement of equipment:

a. Qty 1 Tektronix TDS 2014 100MHZ Digital Storage Oscilloscope

b. Qty 1 HP3631A Power Supply

c. Qty 2 Fluke 8845 Digital Multimeters

d. Qty 1 Tektronix AFG 310 Function Generator

e. Qty 1 Pentium4 Computer with a full complement of Electrical

Engineering based software including Cadence,Spice,Xilinx, and

LabView. All of the above equipment is connected to the computer via a GPIB Interface.

In addition, we have a Leader LTC905 Curve Tracer with an HP54603 Oscilloscope readout, an HP8567A Spectrum Analyzer, and an HP4192 Impedance Analyzer for use by the whole laboratory. This laboratory is used for ECE203, ECE204, ECE307, and ECE409. Over the past 2 years, we have added LabView based experiments for ECE204, including Curve Tracing for Transistors, Diodes, and MOSFET's, as well as a general purpose Program for Measuring the Frequency and Phase response of AC Circuits. These experiments were designed to teach circuit concepts, as well as introduce the students to the concepts of automating laboratory measurements. We have also upgraded all of the computers to Pentium4,Windows XP units, and now have a full suite of engineering software installed on each unit.

2. Prototyping Laboratory: Closely allied with the Circuits Lab, this is located in E103. It has a basic complement of digital and analog oscilloscopes, function generators, power supplies, and logic analyzers. Also, we have soldering equipment and surface mount machinery there as well. It is intended as a place for students to work on prototypes for our Capstone and other projects classes. It is also available for students to come in and simply experiment with projects of their own personal interest; we have quite a few that wish to explore a topic outside of regular class work. The emphasis in this lab is on physical construction techniques.

3. Power Laboratory: Located in C125, this lab is used for our Electromechanical Power conversion course, ECE3250. It consists of 4 power workbenches each equipped with:

a. 3 phase 240-volt power distribution

b. Single Phase 120-volt power distribution

c. An assortment of small motors and transformers

d. A torque measurement test stand.

e. A Tektronix TDS 2014 100MHZ Digital Storage Oscilloscope

f. A Tektronix AFG 3021 Function Generator

105

g. A Fluke 8845 Digital Multimeter.

h. NI SCXI Data acquisition system, with Labview programs for monitoring all voltages and power relations. All high voltage measurements are done with this fully isolated system. Students are able to safely view all waveforms in a complete polyphase system as well. This lab is listed by National Instruments on their website as an example of a well done power lab for undergraduate instruction.

In addition, the lab has several Fluke99 Scopemeters, Fluke41B Harmonic analyzers, Fluke33 Clamp meters, and Strobotac 1546 Stroboscopes to use throughout the lab.

4. Digital Systems Laboratory. Located in C123, this laboratory is used for ECE 2330, and ECE 3330. It has the following complement of equipment:

a. 10 Global Specialties PB506 Prototype test systems for work with discrete logic gates, typically 7400 series TTL.

c. 15 Pentium4 Computers with the full complement of engineering software mentioned for our other computers. We also have simulators for the MIPS instruction on these computers, and Xilinx software for advanced digital design.

In this Laboratory, we study basic digital logic functions, as well as VHDL programming for FPGA's. Also computer architectures are studied using the MIPS simulators.

5. Controls Laboratory. Located in C125, this laboratory is used for controls systems courses. It has the following test equipment:

a. 4 FeedBack Systems LTD Analog/Mechanical Trainers. These are electromechanical units used to study control system strategies using classical PID techniques.

b. 4 Feedback Systems LTD Digital Control Units. These are used in conjunction with the Analog/Mechanical Trainers to study digital control techniques.

c. 4 Pentium 4 Windows XP computers, to be used with the Digital Control Units, incorporating MATLAB interfaces.

d. We are designing and installing Labview based digital control experiments using computerized DAQ equipment from NI. This should be operational in the Fall of 2010.

6. Advanced Digital Systems Laboratory. Also located in C125, this laboratory is used in ECE 4440. It consists of the above equipment and in addition:

a. 5 TLA Logic analyzers, Models TLA612,TLA704,TLA714

b. 5 XSA100 Xilinx FPGA boards.

In this lab, students design an actual microprocessor core, and test to specifications set forth in the course. In previous years, the designs were rendered on a fusible link FPGA, and wire wrapped to a prototype board. Starting last year, we went to a ram-based FPGA, on a pre-

106

configured board. This has enabled the students to implement much more advanced processor architectures, by enabling testing and iteration of designs on the actual FPGA.

7. Communications laboratory. Located in C316, this Laboratory is used for ECE 4710 Communications. It contains the following equipment:

a. 1 Advantest R3131 Spectrum Analyzer

b. 1 HP8656B Signal Generator

c. 1 HP3582A Spectrum Analyzer

d. 6 Pentium Computers with Matlab, Metrowerks Codewarrior,

and other Engineering software

e. 5 Tektronix TDS 2014 100MHZ Digital Storage Oscilloscopes

f. 5 Tektronix AFG 3021 Function Generators

g. 1 Fluke 6060B Synthesized RF Signal Generator

h. 1 HP8752C Network Analyzer

i. 5 TEK114 Signal Generators

j. 5 HP E3630A DC Power Supplies

k. 2 General Radio 1390 Noise Generators

This laboratory is used for experiments in communications theory. Modulation, Bandwidth, noise and other properties of signals used for communications, especially in the RF environment are studied.

8. IC Fabrication Laboratory. Located in our department cleanroom facility, this laboratory is used for ECE 4155. The cleanroom is both a teaching and research facility and exposes the students to realistic processing equipment and processes. Safety and environmental impact are strongly emphasized in this facility. The facility contains all tools necessary for the students to fabricate working MOSFET’s, with the exception of ion implantation (wafers are sent out for that step). The facility includes:

a) surface profilometry

b) optical microscopy

c) contact lithography

d) wet chemical etching

e) plasma etching

f) Aluminum evaporation and sputter deposition

g) Electrical test

107

8. Internet Engineering Laboratory. Located in the back of Olsson 002A, this laboratory is used for CS/ECE 4468, Internet Engineering. The hardware and software allows students to carry out lab exercises to study the technologies and protocols of network management and the Internet. In lab sessions, students learn to set up networking hardware and software, take and interpret traffic measurements, and understand how protocols of the Internet interact. The facility includes three racks of networking equipment, each configured as follows:

a) Four routers: Cisco 2500/2600s

b) Four PCs running Linux

c) Ethernet hubs

d) Monitor, keyboard, mouse and KVM switch

e) Cables and connectors

108

Software Tools

Software Tool License Faculty ECE Courses Comment

Mentor FPGA ECE Williams, Lach, Powell

ECE 4435 Computer Organization and Design

Cadence/Orcad

PSpice

ECE Blalock, Stan, Powell, Barker, Wilson


ECE 4907 and 4908 (Capstone)

ECE 4209 RF Circuit Design

ECE 4332 Intro VLSI

Circuit Simulation

Silvaco ATHENA

ECE Harriott ECE 4155 IC Fabrication

IC process simulation

MaxPlusII ECE Powell ECE 4907 and 4908 (Capstone)

Xilinx ECE Stan ECE 4440 Advanced Digital Design

Matlab ITC Barker, Brandt-Pearce Lin,Wilson, Tao

In many ECE courses

Labview ITC Wilson, Powell


ECE 4907 and 4908 (Capstone)

Mathematica ITC In many ECE courses

Mathcad Individual

Bean, Harriott, Weikle, Marshall, Reed

In many ECE courses

Microwave Office

ECE Barker

Puff ECE Weikle 482ECE 5260 Microwave Engineering

Microwave circuit simulation

Quack Sound Effects Studio

ECE Reed ECE 2066 Science of Information

109

Goldwave ECE Reed ECE 2066 Science of Information

Opnet ECE Brandt-Pearce

ECE 4785 Optical Communications

abet self-study report - university of virginiapeople.virginia.edu/~lrh8t/ee undergrad program/ee...

Documents