Preliminary Assessment of Experimental Sophomore EE Courses

1
Preliminary Assessment of Experimental Sophomore
EE Courses
James G. Harris, Professor EE and CPE
programs Kena Burke, Assessment Center, College
of Engineering Cal Poly FIE 2003 Boulder
Colorado November 6, 2003 Session T3B
2
Outline

• Background
• Assessment Approach
• Preliminary results
• Conclusions to date

3
Background

• Experimental EE sophomore year courses
• implemented in AY 2001-02
• prerequisite material for the junior year
• replaced lower division circuits and electronics
  courses with DSP first and integrated circuits
  and electronics courses
• currently undergoing assessment

4
Background (continued)

• Cohort sequence
• Circuits EE 112, EE 211/241, EE 212/242
  Electronics EE 208/248
• 14 units - 11 units lecture, 3 labs
• Experimental sequence
• EE x220, EE x221, EE x222
• 12 units - 4 unit studio per quarter

5
Background (continued)

• EE x220
• DSP First Georgia Tech developed
• McClellan, Schafer, Yoder text
• introduction to phasors, first/second order
  systems
• frequency response and z transforms
• EE x221,x222
• integrated circuits and electronics
• followed time allocation of EE 208/248
• resistive circuits, then capacitors, inductors
• Alexander, Sidiku for circuits Jaeger for
  electronics

6
Assessment Approach

• Choose cohort from Spring 2001 GPA
• Compare grades in junior year courses
• CENG assessment office performed data
  collection/analysis - Kena Burke
• Comparison through Spring 2003

7
cohorts
x-students
8
Preliminary Results

• Compared means and standard deviation of grades
  in junior courses
• table summarizes
• Retention reviewing grades below C
• Individual course distribution in junior year
  courses

9
(No Transcript)
10
Preliminary Results - courses

• Summary of GPA means in 20 courses
• Experimental students better in 11
• Cohort students better in 9
• No significant differences observed
• exception is DSP course
• experimental 3.25 versus cohort 2.63

11
Preliminary Results - distribution

• Grade distribution being studied
• Hypothesis is that experimental students had less
  below C grades
• Results still being prepared
• Example is EE 301
• experimental 6 below C
• cohort 8 below C
• 34 experimental students versus 43 cohorts

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Preliminary Results - Retention

• Experimental students
• 55 students started sequence
• 10 did not continue after EE x220
• only 4 did not pass with C or better
• 1 withdrew for coop after EE x221
• 4 did not pass after EE x222
• summary 8/55 did not pass, rest C or better

15
Preliminary Results - Retention

• Cohort students
• Review of 2001-02, 2002-03 sequence courses
• 321/1972 students with grades below C
• Summary
• Percent students with grades below C
• Experimental 14.2
• Cohort16.2

16
Conclusions to date

• Retention better
• better impedance match
• No harm done
• Maybe less is better for lower division
• less circuits
• same electronics
• and DSP
• Also less resources to deliver courses
• 30 versus 46 wtus (weighted teaching units)

17
Conclusions to date

• Presented results to faculty October 22, 2003
• lots of discussion
• Curriculum has changed for 2003-05 catalog
• same number of units as before
• Plan to pursue modified approach in future
  catalog
• longer labs for circuits/electronics only change

18
Acknowledgement

• I would not have attempted this research project
  if it were not for the generous support of other
  faculty who have taught the DSP first course. In
  particular, Jim McClellan of Georgia Tech and
  Victor DeBrunner of the U. of Oklahoma shared
  some of their notes with me.

19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)