Program Self-Study Report for Bachelor of Science in ......B.3 Minutes of ECMET Faculty Discussions on CET Capstone Nov. 11 2009 . . . 87 B.4 Minutes of ECMET Faculty Discussions on

Program Self-Study Reportfor

Bachelor of Science in Computer EngineeringTechnology

Submitted byDepartment of Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology

College of TechnologyIndiana State University

to the

Technology Accreditation CommissionAccreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc.

111 Market Place, Suite 1050Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4012

August 30, 2012

Contents

Contents i

Preface 1

1 Background and Overview 2

1.1 Degree Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Program Mode and Curriculum Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Department Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4 Department Constituents and Feedback Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.5 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.6 Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Students 6

2.1 Undergraduate Student Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Admission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3 Student Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4 Transfer Student Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.5 Advising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.5.1 Adviser and Student Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.5.2 Advising Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.5.3 General Advising Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.5.4 New Students Orientation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.5.5 Advising Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.5.6 Adviser Personal Identification Number (PIN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.5.7 Student Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

i

2.6 Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.7 On-line Undergraduate Academic Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.8 Student Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.9 Tutoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.10 Career Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Educational Objectives 14

3.1 Institutional, College and Departmental Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.1 Institutional mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.2 College mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Constituencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.3 Program Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.4 Consistency with Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.5 Consistency with ABET Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.6 Developing Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.6.1 Process to Determine Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.7 Assessing Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.7.1 Advisory board survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.7.2 Alumni survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.7.3 Employers survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.8 Evaluating Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.9 Educational Objectives Evaluation Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4 Student Outcomes 27

4.1 Student Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.2 Relationship of Student Outcomes to Educational Objectives and ABET Cri-teria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.3 Student Outcomes and Course Learning Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.4 Developing Student Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.5 Assessment Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.5.1 Performance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.5.2 Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.6 Assessment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

ii

5 Continuous Improvement and Assessment 45

5.1 Educational Objectives Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.1.1 Data Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.1.2 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.1.3 Data Dissemination and Program Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

5.2 Student Outcomes Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.2.1 Evidence Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5.2.2 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.2.3 Data Dissemination and Program Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6 Curriculum 57

6.1 Foundational Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

6.1.1 Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

6.1.2 Mathematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.1.3 Physical and Natural Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.2 Technical Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.2.1 Technical core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

6.2.2 Use of appropriate tools and computer support . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6.2.3 The Integration of Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6.2.4 Co-operative education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6.2.5 Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

7 Facilities 61

7.1 Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

7.1.1 CET Office Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

7.1.2 Auditorium and Meeting Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

7.2 Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7.3 Laboratories, Equipments and Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7.4 Computing and Information Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

7.5 Library Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

7.6 Adequacy of Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

8 Faculty 65

iii

8.1 Adequacy of Faculty Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

8.2 Faculty Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

8.3 Student-Faculty Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

8.4 University Services and Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

8.5 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

9 Institutional Support 70

9.1 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

9.2 Program Budget and Financial Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

9.3 Faculty Hiring and Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

9.4 Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

9.5 Support for Faculty Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

10 Program Criteria 73

A Industrial Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 76

B ECET (ECMET) Department Meeting Minutes 84

C Computer Engineering Technology Faculty Meeting Minutes 89

D Industrial Advisory Board Survey 96

D.1 Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

D.2 2012 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

D.3 2009 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

D.4 Sample Survey Returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

E Computer Engineering Technology Alumni Survey 119

E.1 Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

E.2 2012 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

E.3 2009 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

F Employer Survey 157

F.1 Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

F.2 2010 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

iv

G Senior Exit Survey 167

H Faculty Resume 180

I Curriculum 187

J Institutional Support 191

K Facilities 203

L Articulation Agreements 206

M Computer Engineering Program Brochure 211

N Syllabi 214

O Institutional Summary 273

v

List of Tables

1.1 Contact Information: Chairperson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2 Contact Information: Program Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 CET Program Enrollment and Degree Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.1 Relationship between Educational Objectives and ABET Program Criteria . 18

3.2 Educational Objectives Performance Rubric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.3 Educational Objectives Assessment Benchmarks, Interpretations, and Pro-gram Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.1 Correspondence between Educational Objectives, Student Outcomes, andABET a-k Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2 Correspondence between CET curriculum and Student Outcomes . . . . . . 30

4.3 Performance Criteria for Outcome 1: Problem Solving Skills . . . . . . . . . 34

4.4 Performance Criteria for Outcome 2: Design Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.5 Performance Criteria for Outcome 3: Lab Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.6 Performance Criteria for Outcome 4: Managerial Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.7 Performance Criteria for Outcome 5: Ethics Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.8 Performance Criteria for Outcome 6: Life-Long Learning . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.9 Performance Criteria for Outcome 7: Teamwork Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.10 Performance Criteria for Outcome 8: Communication Skills . . . . . . . . . 41

4.11 Assessment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.1 Survey Summary on the Degree of Importance of Educational Objectives . . 46

5.2 Survey Summary on the Degree of Readiness of Educational Objectives . . 46

6.1 Course and Section Size Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

vi

7.1 ECET Department Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

8.1 Faculty Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

8.2 Faculty Workload Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

8.3 Faculty Workload Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

10.1 Correlation between Program Criteria and Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

J.1 Programs Offered by the Educational Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

J.2 Support Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

J.3 Faculty Salary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

J.4 Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

vii

List of Figures

3.1 Program Evaluation Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A.1 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting April 25 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

A.2 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting April 6 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78



A.5 Minutes of ECT IAB Meeting November 24 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81



B.1 Proposed Discussion Items on CET Program for IAB Meeting . . . . . . . . 85

B.2 Proposed Changes to Address ABET Capstone Requirement . . . . . . . . . 86

B.3 Minutes of ECMET Faculty Discussions on CET Capstone Nov. 11 2009 . . . 87

B.4 Minutes of ECMET Faculty Discussions on CET Capstone Nov. 13 2009 . . . 88

C.1 CET Faculty Meeting Minutes October 6 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

C.2 CET Faculty Meeting Minutes February 8 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

C.3 CET Faculty Meeting Minutes October 10 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

C.4 CET Faculty Meeting Minutes November 2 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

C.5 F-1 Form for CET Capstone Course Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

C.6 Proposed CET Capstone Syllabus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

D.1 2012 IAB Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

D.2 2012 Industrial Advisory Board Survey Results on CET Program Educa-tional Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

D.3 2009 Industrial Advisory Board Survey Results on CET Program Educa-tional Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

viii

D.4 Survey Return Sample: IAB Approval of Educational Objectives . . . . . . . 115




E.1 2012 Alumni Survey on Program Educational Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 120

E.2 2012 Alumni Survey Results on CET Program Educational Objectives . . . . 122

E.3 2009 Alumni Survey Results on CET Program Educational Objectives . . . . 143

F.1 2012 Employer Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

F.2 Employer Survey Results Spring 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

G.1 Spring 2012 Senior Exit Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

I.1 CET Program Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

I.2 CET Program Four Year Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

I.3 Graduation Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

J.1 NSF STARS Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

J.2 Dean’s Support Letter for CET NSF CCLI Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

J.3 Dean’s Support Letter for CET NSF TUES Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

J.4 Dean’s Support Letter for CET NSF S-STEM Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

J.5 Dean’s Support Letter for CET NSF STEM Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

J.6 Equipment Order: FPGA Development Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

J.7 Software Upgrade Order: National Instruments LabView . . . . . . . . . . . 200

K.1 Library Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

K.2 Library Funding Allocation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

L.1 CET Articulation Agreement with Ivy Tech Community College . . . . . . . 207

L.2 CET Articulation Agreement with Lakeland Community College . . . . . . 208

L.3 CET Articulation Agreement with Vincennes University (AS Degree) . . . . 209

L.4 CET Articulation Agreement with Vincennes University (AAS Degree) . . . 210

M.1 CET Brochure Page 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

M.2 CET Brochure Page 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

ix

Preface

The Indiana State University Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering Tech-nology is seeking accreditation for its Computer Engineering Technology (CET) degreeunder the ABET Technology Accreditation Commission (TAC) 2012 criteria.

Originated from the Computer Hardware Technology program, CET currently has a to-tal enrollment of 60 students for the academic year 2011-12. Since its inception in 2008, ithas seen 22 students graduate. The program strictly follows the department, College anduniversity guidelines for admitting, evaluating, monitoring, and advising students. In2010, the National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded the program with a five-year grantSTARS: Sycamore Technology Academics and Recruitment Scholarships. These scholar-ships are both need-based and merit-based, and are intended to support academically wor-thy yet financially challenged freshmen and transfer students with a special emphasis onimproving under-represented student population in the program.

Over the years, measurable educational objectives have been developed under the guid-ance from constituents that fulfill Indiana State University and the College of Technologymissions, and ABET requirements. In this self-study report we elaborate the systematiclearning assessment and evaluation plan that have been proposed and implemented bythe program for its continuous improvement. Also included in this report are faculty,facilities, and institutional profiles to demonstrate the program’s strengths and availablesupport.

1

Chapter 1

Background and Overview

1.1 Degree Title

The Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology (ECET) at IndianaState University (ISU) requests accreditation for the degree program of Bachelor of Sciencein Computer Engineering Technology (CET). The program offers rigorous education thatprepares students for various computer engineering technology careers. The curriculum isstructured to provide proficiencies in fundamental technical subjects and experiences thatfuse life-long learning with professional ethics.

The CET program is, and has been accredited by Association of Technology, Manage-ment, and Applied Engineering (ATMAE), formerly National Association of IndustrialTechnology (NAIT).

1.2 Program Mode and Curriculum Overview

Computer Engineering Technology is a day program designed for on campus full-timestudents. The program is offered on a semester basis: one 50-minute lecture or one 100-minute lab session per week in a sixteen-week semester constitutes one-credit.

The Indiana State University’s academic year consists of Fall, Spring and Summer ses-sions. During Summer no CET courses are normally offered, but students may take Foun-dational Studies courses. Students are encouraged to participate in co-operative education,summer internships and summer professional experiences.

The 2011-12 curriculum is attached in Figure I.1 to give the reviewers a brief overviewof the CET program. The educational objectives and student outcomes are implementedthrough this curriculum. Also in Appendix M we have included the latest CET programbrochure.

2

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW 3

1.3 Department Culture

The composition of department faculty reflects both experience and growth. Several se-nior faculty have served the College and department for over three decades and are wellrespected within the university and local community. They understand the history and tra-ditions of the programs, and have long established close relationships with constituents.They also offer invaluable guidance and mentorship to junior faculty. Under the leadershipof senior faculty the department has groomed a culture that revolves around collaborationand consensus. Faculty members share thoughts in an open and equal environment, andjunior faculty are encouraged to voice opinions. It is always in this fashion that decisionsconcerning curriculum and program development are debated and implemented to assurethat the program and students’ best interests are served.

The department has developed a mature mechanism to cope with challenges due to thechanges in the overall educational environment, and is forthcoming in terms of curriculumadjustment. Traditional students that came directly out of high school used to representthe majority of the undergraduate population, however the last few years have seen theincrease of non-traditional students and transfer students from neighboring communitycolleges. The articulation agreements with Ivy Tech Community College and other two-and four-year schools are the latest example that demonstrates the department’s acuteadaptation to sustain programs growth and to provide quality education to those whowish to continue study beyond an associate degree.

Interaction between faculty and students is always the cornerstone of departmentalphilosophy for building a healthy and productive faculty-student relationship. Small classsize and low student-instructor ratio provide a more open atmosphere for both partiesto exchange thoughts. Student advising is an element that weighs heavily in faculty ser-vice, and the process keeps the faculty in close contact with our current and prospectivestudents in regards to their academic progress.

1.4 Department Constituents and Feedback Loops

The department’s constituents include current and prospective students, alumni, studentemployers, and industrial advisory board. Inputs from these constituents reach the de-partment through various channels. These inputs along with the responding mechanismform the basis to assure program refinement.

Current students interact with faculty through classes, individual meetings and specialevents. Suggestions or shortcomings raised through these interactions are normally con-cerns at the course-level and do not affect overall curriculum organization and content.Faculty respond to these concerns by making micro-adjustment in teaching pedagogy, ma-terial presentation and classroom activities. This is considered the inner feedback loop thatis handled by individual faculty in a relatively short time frame. Concerns that are beyondthe course-level will be presented to the entire faculty for discussion, and if legitimate, betaken into consideration in higher level curricular modifications.


Involvement of a wider array of constituents such as advisory board, alumni and em-ployers seeks inputs for larger perspectives, namely curriculum and program level adjust-ments. The survey is the most common format for soliciting feedback. Recruiting andoutreach are other venues. Faculty study and debate the input, and decide the actionneeded with respect to the department’s facility, manpower, and resources. This is consid-ered macro-adjustment as it may result in changes to curriculum, program objectives andoutcomes. It demands a longer cycle and even a phased plan to implement the solutionsgenerated through the process.

1.5 Report Organization

This self-study was developed during the 2011-12 academic year, and follows the 2012-13criteria approved by the ABET Board of Directors on October 29, 2011. The report is pre-sented using the chapter organizational scheme with each chapter dedicated to addressingone criterion. The chapter titles are as follows:

Chapter 2: Students (Criterion 1)

Chapter 3: Educational Objectives (Criterion 2)

Chapter 4: Student Outcomes (Criterion 3)

Chapter 5: Continuous Improvement and Assessment (Criterion 4)

Chapter 6: Curriculum (Criterion 5)

Chapter 7: Facilities (Criterion 6)

Chapter 8: Faculty (Criterion 7)

Chapter 9: Institutional Support (Criterion 8)

Chapter 10: Program Criteria

1.6 Contact Information

The direct contact personnel for ABET accreditation at ISU for CET program are: Dr. JoeAshby and Dr. Yuetong Lin. Their contact information are listed in Table 1.1 and Table 1.2.


Dr. Joe Ashby

Chairperson

Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology

Office: TC 301 E Phone: 812-237-3457

Fax: 812-237-3397 Email:[email protected]

Address: Room 301, 101 North Sixth Street, Terre Haute IN-47809

Table 1.1: Contact Information: Chairperson

Dr. Yuetong Lin

Program Coordinator, Computer Engineering Technology

Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology

Office: TC 301 H Phone: 812-237-3399

Fax: 812-237-3397 Email: [email protected]

Address: Room 301, 101 North Sixth Street, Terre Haute IN-47809

Table 1.2: Contact Information: Program Coordinator

Chapter 2

Students

In this section, we will describe the policies and procedures instituted by the departmentand program as required by Criterion 1 to evaluate, advise, and monitor students in amanner consistent with program objectives and student outcomes.

2.1 Undergraduate Student Body

The ECET Department has been offering undergraduate degrees since 1978. Though hav-ing experienced several cycles of re-organization, the faculty have always championed thecore value of excellence in producing high quality graduates.

There are 60 students in the CET program by the end of Spring 2012 semester, withethnic minorities constituting about one-third of the student population. The program hasgraduated 22 students since Spring 2009. Our students comprise primarily of residents ofIndiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. Other states and several foreign countries are also repre-sented. Most of the students (57 out of 60) are full time traditional students (18 to 23).

Enrollment in the computer engineering technology program (previously computerhardware technology) has steadily increased from 30+ students to the current level. Wehope to continue to grow the program, and are working towards this goal through strongrecruiting/advertisement effort, and improving retention/graduation rate. The historicalstatistics are shown in Table 2.1.

The ECET Department is strongly committed to improving student diversity. As men-tioned in the Abstract section, the STARS (Figure J.1) grant was awarded by NSF to helpCET program recruit academically talented but financially disadvantaged freshmen andtransfer students over a four-year span. So far African Americans and females constituteabout one half in the first two cohorts of scholarship recipients. The department is activelyinvolved in an annual recruiting event that welcomes female high school students. Sev-eral ECET labs are the main tour destinations and faculty members use the opportunity toshowcase the facility and program strengths. The department is also a major sponsor forthe Female in Technology forum focusing on interaction and career opportunity for female

6

CHAPTER 2. STUDENTS 7

Academic Enrollment Year Total Degrees Award

Year 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Undergrad Associates Bachelors

CurrentYear

2011FT 16 18 13 10 57

71

PT 0 0 1 2 3

1 2010FT 11 9 11 23 54

4PT 1 1 1 1 4

2 2009FT 2 4 6 18 30

5PT 1 0 1 2 4

3 2008FT 2 0 1 21 24

6PT 1 0 0 0 1

Table 2.1: CET Program Enrollment and Degree Data

technology students.

2.2 Admission

Admittance to ISU at the undergraduate level is handled by the university AdmissionsOffice. The program has no involvement with this process. A CET freshman has the sameeligibility requirements as freshmen in other majors.

2.3 Student Performance Evaluation

To earn a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering technology, students must completethe subjects in the curriculum, have minimum GPA of 2.0/4.0 in all work attempted at ISU.Other requirements include a minimum of 50 hours of 300/400 level courses, and 30 hoursof residency, etc.

Pre-requisites for CET courses are strictly enforced. Passing the pre-requisite is neces-sary for an adviser to approve student’s course registration for the following semester. An‘F’ grade in courses that are pre-requisites for other courses in the curriculum requires thecourse to be repeated.

2.4 Transfer Student Policies

Transfer students constitute an increasing portion in our undergraduate population. Mostof our transfers come from neighboring community colleges. The main factor contributingto this scenario is the expansion of the two-year junior college system in Indiana, whichhas been a priority for the state legislatures and Higher Education Commission to offermore affordable college education to Indiana residents. This agenda has posed serious


competition for enrollment at lower levels for our program. In the mean time however, thestate is also pressing for an increase in the rate of two-year graduates continuing to pursuefour-year bachelor degree. We therefore consider this to be a great opportunity for futureprogram growth, and with a strategically crafted transfer plan in place we expect transfersto remain strong in the coming years.

The CET program has established articulation agreements with sister programs at sev-eral colleges and regional universities that allow students to complete an associate degreeand apply credits towards a bachelor degree at ISU. These institutions include: Ivy TechCommunity College, Lakeland Community College, and Vincennes University. Each artic-ulation agreement stipulates the ISU courses that the transfer students need to complete,along with the requirements or guidelines that govern the agreement. An associate degreeholder from these institutions takes the so-called “block-transfer”, i.e., courses with ac-ceptable grade would directly substitute ISU equivalents without repeated scrutiny. Theseagreements help pre-establish course equivalence and ease the transition to ISU. They arealso reviewed and revised if necessary every two years to assure the courses are well-aligned on both ends. The most recent agreements are listed in Figure L.1, Figure L.2,Figure L.3, and Figure L.4.

Besides the articulations, CET faculty also utilize the course-by-course approach to eval-uate transfer requests from students from other schools or programs:

• Transfer students first apply and are admitted to the university through the regu-lar admissions process. Their records will be evaluated first by Transfer Central, theon-campus office that provides a centralized processing primarily for non-technicalcredits. If there are any questions regarding the suitability of a substitution or trans-fer course, the program faculty will be consulted.

• The program will be responsible for reviewing the CET subjects to determine whetherthey have the rigor and coverage equivalent to ones in our curriculum. The decisionsare made based on the syllabus, course description, and other supplemental materialpresented by students. If a course is not found to be suitable for substitution, a trans-fer equivalence may not be granted. A course that is qualified to be university-levelwork in the technical subjects but cannot be substituted into the curriculum can becounted towards the general credit hour requirement or electives.

A maximum of 94 hours of transfer credit may be assigned towards a bachelor’s degree.However in all cases, the final 45 credits of the degree program must be earned while inresidence. In August 2005 the department unanimously passed a motion to require alltransfer students to complete a minimum 15 credits of major courses while enrolled atISU.

We recognize transfer credits may originate from different sources. To maintain thecurriculum integrity, the program does not “grandfather” credits accepted by other insti-tutions and reserves the right to evaluate according to CET requirements.


2.5 Advising

Academic advising is an integral part of the educational process. The primary purpose ofadvising is to assist students in the development of meaningful educational plans compat-ible with the attainment of their life goals.

2.5.1 Adviser and Student Role

The department and program expect advisers to develop the knowledge, experience, andinterest for effectively communicating with students in a genuine, sincere, accurate, andconfidential manner. Students are expected to understand university’s and program’s re-quirements and accept the responsibility for fulfilling them. Together advisers and stu-dents should maintain a professional and mutually respectful relationship as they reviewstudents’ progress toward the attainment of educational objectives.

2.5.2 Advising Units

Advising in CET program starts from the freshman year and will continue through thesenior year. Students have a variety of advising resources provided by units at the Collegeand department level. As a student progresses through the academic program, each ad-vising unit will play a different role, depending on the status and concern of the student.Key advisement personnel include:

1. Office of undergraduate academic services. The director of the office is the chiefadministrator in the College for undergraduate academics. This office oversees allgeneral advising and curriculum issues.There are several support staff in this office who help students on advising, schedul-ing and registration:

• The central academic adviser. This position was created after the College reor-ganization in Fall 2006 with the goal of having a centralized advising contact.The advisor handles the advising requests on a daily basis.

• The central records coordinator. This staff is to assist the director in organiz-ing and coordinating new students orientation program (see 2.5.4), assist stu-dents’ registration, process transfer request, provide information on Founda-tional Studies requirements, and review degree requirements at the time ofgraduation.

These staff members establish student contact during the orientation process. In thehierarchy of advising team they are the first line of response. Meetings with dean’sstaff are generally on an “as needed” basis, usually upon student’s request. Having asingle point of contact provides a convenient and consistent base for students to seekhelp on issues such as transfer credits, Foundational Studies, course substitutions,etc.


2. Academic adviser. When a student enrolls as a CET major, he/she is assigned anacademic adviser who is a full-time member of the faculty. The student will retainthis adviser as long as he/she feels advising has been productive, thereby enablingthe development of a closer, more interactive relationship between the two parties.Students may request a change in their assigned adviser at any time by contactingthe department chair or program coordinator. The role of the faculty adviser is toprovide general guidance regarding CET curriculum and career paths. Each facultyadviser has a crucial role in monitoring and advising students, and in catching aca-demic problems before they become serious.

2.5.3 General Advising Policy

It is mandatory for students to arrange advisement meeting with their adviser at least onceper semester to review progress and discuss plans and courses for subsequent semesters.The adviser will evaluate up-to-date DARS to see if there exists a need to adjust the sched-ule. The meeting is to take place prior to registration for each semester. All students arerequired to obtain adviser’s approval on the signed scheduling form before they can reg-ister on-line for courses. The approval is also indispensable when students decide to addor drop courses from their schedule.

Besides advisement meetings, advisers routinely monitor each student’s progress to-wards the degree completion, work carefully to identify any deficiencies, and communi-cate the concerns to student through emails and meetings if necessary. In the mean time,the student may also request more frequent meetings depending on his/her needs.

In addition to academic advising, advisers also offer counsel with the help from appro-priate authority on campus to students who are experiencing emotional, personal or familytroubles. For students with documented physical and learning disabilities, advisers willhelp accommodate their special needs following university guidelines.

2.5.4 New Students Orientation Program

The program is offered in June and early January for fall and spring semester freshman

During this orientation the freshmen will have the first experience of academic advis-ing. Not only will they meet with the entire College level advising team including thedirector of undergraduate academic services and his/her staff, participating CET facultymember will have one-on-one session with the students to introduce important advisingtools such as the university catalog, program guide sheet, and on-line DARS report. Ad-visers also review student’s first semester schedule: these courses are pre-registered basedon their ACT/SAT score and placement test results. Additionally students learn to search,add or drop courses on-line.


2.5.5 Advising Tools

The main advising tools are the CET curriculum guide sheet and exemplary four-year plan.

• The guide sheet is a one-page curriculum form that itemizes all the courses requiredto obtain a degree in CET. For the student’s program of study, this is a one-page formthat many students find to be the most useful means for tracking progress towarddegree completion (Figure I.1)). Student can carry a copy of the guide sheet as acheck list to monitor academic progress.

• The four-year plan (Figure I.2) arranges the curriculum in a suggested semester-by-semester track. This document also shows students when classes are offered (fall,spring, or both).

• Degree Audit Report System (DARS) is the most complete curriculum tracker avail-able to students through their “isuportal” link. It is especially convenient for trans-fers and students who switch majors. Students have easy access to DARS and areexpected to understand the contents and all legends after the orientation.

2.5.6 Adviser Personal Identification Number (PIN)

For students who have not completed a minimum 63 credits, an advisement PIN is to beassigned after a complete scheduling form has been signed by the student’s adviser. Thedepartment secretary and undergraduate academic services office staff have access to thisPIN for student inquiry. Students must have the PIN to be able to register.

2.5.7 Student Record

The department maintains student’s record in separate folder. The content includes thecourses in which the student is currently enrolled, which courses have been taken, alongwith student’s grades and notes of advice to the student. Figure I.3 is the checklist forgraduation kept by the undergraduate academic services office.

2.6 Mentoring

It has been part of the department’s culture for faculty to have an “open-door” policy forstudent visits. The primary role of mentoring encompasses general non-curriculum re-lated guidance to student concerns on transition to college, employment perspective, andprofessional development, etc. Although there is no structured system for these activities,our department prides itself in creating an informal and comfortable social atmosphere inwhich students can routinely communicate with faculty outside classrooms. Survey re-sults have shown students are satisfied with faculty’s availability and willingness to servethe mentoring responsibility.


2.7 On-line Undergraduate Academic Information

Internet has become the dominant source to which our students constantly subscribe in-formation of interest. Great effort has been spent recently, therefore, to make departmentweb site an easily accessible outlet for information regarding curriculum, advising, andcareer advice.

2.8 Student Awards

Several awards sponsored by professional societies and individual donors recognize out-standing student academics and services. Among these awards are:

• Kenneth and Zorah (Atkins) Syphax-Rapid Reproduction, Inc. Scholarship: Studentmust be a full-time student in the College of Technology and possess a minimumGPA of 2.5

• Thelma F. Mills Scholarship. Students must have completed the freshman year andhave demonstrated outstanding academic performance; must be an undergraduatestudent engaged in a meaningful work experience related to their vocational/professionalobjectives which does not average more than 20 hours per week during the academicyear.

• ECT Alumni Endowed Scholarship. This scholarship is awarded to a student whohas declared a major in electronics and computer technology. The student must be ingood standing with the University and the Department of Electronics and ComputerEngineering Technology.

• Pamela and Earl Godt Scholarship. The award is presented once every two years(alternating with the College of Education) to a full-time student in the Departmentof Electronics and Computer Engineering Technology.

• Dr. Leland B. & Ruth Trask Moore Scholarship. Given annually, the award is pre-sented to a full-time junior level student majoring in electronics engineering technol-ogy (EET) or CET with the highest GPA.

• Electronics and Computer Technology Alumni Endowed Scholarship. The recipi-ent must be in good standing in EET or CET. The International Society of Automa-tion (ISA) recently committed financial support for this scholarship. ISA is a leadingglobal organization that is setting the standard for automation.

The nominations for award recipients are done annually by a selected faculty member.The faculty nominates the students in accordance with the award guidelines. The facultymakes the final decision through comprehensive evaluation.


2.9 Tutoring

The rigorous nature of collegiate level study requires tutoring as an indispensable part ofthe learning process. Tutoring services for CET students are available through two av-enues:

• Through Academic Opportunity Program at ISU, students have access for free tutor-ing for most Foundational Studies courses. Sessions may be arranged on one-to-oneor small study group basis for either long or short term periods each semester. Someproblems can even be handled on a “drop-in” basis. These services are accessibleMonday through Thursday from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM and until 4:30 PM on Fridays.Sunday evening tutoring is available 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM.

• The College of Technology has a centralized tutoring service coordinated by the Of-fice of Undergraduate Academic Services. The tutors are of junior/senior standingand have excellent grades and classroom performance. The hours are from 10:00 AMto 5:00 PM on weekdays. ECET tutors are responsible for assisting students on in-troductory circuit analysis, digital logic, computer programming, and math. Facultyalso offer private tutoring for students in need when schedule allows.

2.10 Career Guidance

ISU Career Center offers services to prepare, educate and assist ISU students throughouttheir career development, to prepare them for a competitive work environment, and topro-actively develop and maintain effective relationships among students, employers andother relevant constituencies. Career Center is responsible for hosting two career fairs ayear on campus. Other services benefiting students employment include a) MyPlan: aCareer Center on-line service to help students plan their career; b) CAREERLINK: a na-tional recruiting network and suite of web based recruiting and career services automa-tion tools serving the needs of Colleges, employers and job candidates; c) Networkingetiquette workshop: workshop that lets students learn about and practice important net-working and dining skills including conversations; interviewing tips; proper dress etc;d) Speed interview review workshop: workshop that lets students practice interviewingskills in group setting alongside their peers.

Chapter 3

Educational Objectives

Educational objectives for the computer engineering technology program have been devel-oped in conjunction with our constituents based on, and are consistent with, the missionstatements of parent units. This chapter contains the mission statements of the univer-sity and College of Technology, and elaborates the process by which these objectives weredetermined, how the program ensures these objectives are achieved, and the systematicassessment to assure continuous improvement of the program.

It is worth noting that the CET program (and its ancestry program) has been continu-ously accredited by other agency since its establishment. This self study report refers to theexisting well-documented procedure, and incorporates practices tailored to reflect ABETrequirements.

3.1 Institutional, College and Departmental Missions

3.1.1 Institutional mission

On February 22, 2008, the Indiana State University Board of Trustees approved the follow-ing revised version of mission statement and value statement that reflects a commitment toresearch, public service and a well-rounded education. The statements were developed bya committee of faculty, staff and students chaired by Dr. C. Jack Maynard, Indiana State’sprovost and vice president for academic affairs.

ISU Mission statement. Indiana State University, a doctoral research university, combines atradition of strong undergraduate and graduate education with a focus on community and publicservice. We integrate teaching, research, and creative activity in an engaging, challenging, andsupportive learning environment to prepare productive citizens for Indiana and the world.

Values statement.

14

CHAPTER 3. EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES 15

• We value high standards for learning, teaching, and inquiry.• We provide a well-rounded education that integrates professional preparation and

study in the arts and sciences with co-curricular involvement.• We demonstrate integrity through honesty, civility, and fairness.• We embrace the diversity of individuals, ideas, and expressions.• We foster personal growth within an environment in which every individual matters.• We uphold the responsibility of University citizenship.• We exercise stewardship of our global community.

The mission and values statement are published at the following URL: http://www.indstate.edu/whyisu/.

3.1.2 College mission

To cope with the changing conditions related to state funding, technology, the economy,and student demographics, the College of Technology underwent a major reorganizationin 2009 that saw the establishment of five departments. Nonetheless the College remainsfully committed to its undergraduate mission and the goal to delivering high quality edu-cation, as reflected in the following mission statement:

The College of Technology will provide exemplary undergraduate and graduate programs, gen-erate solutions and knowledge through research, and serve the technology needs of the State, thenation, and the international community.

The COT mission statement is also published in university catalog and on-line at http://www.indstate.edu/tech/aboutcot/mission.htm.

3.2 Constituencies

We identify the following stake-holders to be the constituencies with respect to programeducational objectives and student outcomes. Each group has special interests in thesestated goals:

• Students of CET program. The students expect themselves to become technicallycompetent, professionally and socially responsible individuals after earning a bach-elor degree from the program.

• Alumni. The alumni expect a continued high quality educational program as theircareer and reputation are associated with the quality of their alma mater.

• Faculty. The faculty are expected to fulfill their educational responsibility in leadingthe students in the learning process, and periodically evaluating and adjusting ifnecessary the teaching pedagogy pertinent to achieving the educational objectives.

• Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). This selective and highly involved group of indi-viduals expect to see the program yield quality graduates that meet industry needs.


• Student employers. This group expects to hire fresh employees who are technicallycompetent, productive, self-motivated learners, team members, and have excellentcommunication skills.

3.3 Program Educational Objectives

Computer Engineering Technology graduates are expected to demonstrate (short title atthe end of each objective for future reference in this document):

1. technical proficiency by applying disciplinary reasoning and critical thinking to iden-tify, analyze and solve problems in computers, systems integration, automation, dig-ital systems, data communications, computer networks, and electronics (TechnicalCompetency).

2. effective communication skills in both oral and written form to articulate technicalknowledge, ideas, and proposals (Communication Competency)

3. organizational, and increasing levels of managerial skills in their chosen field (Man-agerial Competency).

4. the awareness of professional, ethical and social responsibility and impact of engi-neering technology practices in Indiana and a diversified world (Responsibility Aware-ness).

5. the ability to function effectively, think independently and work collaboratively in ateam environment (Teamwork Competency).

6. individual desire and commitment to remain technically current by engaging in con-tinuous self-improvement and lifelong learning (Lifelong Learning Competency).

The program objectives are published on the university on-line catalog:

http://catalog.indstate.edu/preview program.php?catoid=7&poid=1218&returnto=140

3.4 Consistency with Missions

The program’s educational objectives correlate well with mission statements of all parentunits. These statements share the common educational values: graduating professionallycompetent students who can serve both as a leader and team member under differentcircumstances, and understand the impact of their work both to themselves and society asa whole.

We believe our educational objectives incorporate these values:

• The first two objectives reflect program’s commitment to providing quality under-graduate education in both technical and liberal studies.


• Objective 3 and 5 address program’s emphasis on students’ team-work mentality inprofessional, community and public service.

• Objective 4 fulfills program’s contribution to society, and Indiana in particular, byadvancing students’ awareness on social and environmental implication of their ca-reer.

• Objective 6 represents program’s commitment to graduates’ long-term productivity.

3.5 Consistency with ABET Criteria

The development of educational objectives also correlates closely on the skills identifiedunder ABET a-k Criteria. Table 3.1 illustrates the consistency of these statements.

3.6 Developing Educational Objectives

We developed the educational objectives based on several considerations including ABETcriteria and mission statements of parent units. In the process we consulted intensivelywith our constituencies, with primary external source of input being the industrial advi-sory board. The rationale for this reliance is: due to the start-up nature of the program,other external constituencies, such as alumni and employers, all have very limited num-bers. Therefore we consider IAB’s feedback to be the most comprehensive and expedientfor our cause.

The process of developing educational objectives started soon after the program de-cided to adopt the “engineering technology” name, and began to take shape after a facultyrepresentative participated the ABET workshop on program evaluation that helped clar-ify several key components of the procedure. The program faculty then developed a setof objectives in conjunction with key constituencies. These objectives were submitted tofaculty for discussion and revision. In Fall 2009, the latest objectives were presented to theindustrial advisory board for consultation and advice. With further modifications the finalversion of objectives was approved by the faculty.

3.6.1 Process to Determine Educational Objectives

Historical Records

The program has ample, and well-documented discussions with our constituents–in par-ticular, industrial advisory board –in establishing educational objectives.

The following segments highlight the relevant records:

IAB meeting minutes We have attached the IAB meeting minutes from academic year2004-05 when the department started to contemplate the program title change and curricu-


ABET 2012 Criteria

anab

ility

tose

lect

and

appl

yth

ekn

owle

dge,

tech

niqu

es,s

kills

,and

mod

ern

tool

sof

the

disc

iplin

eto

broa

dly-

defin

eden

gine

erin

gte

chno

logy

acti

viti

es

anab

ility

tose

lect

and

appl

ya

know

ledg

eof

mat

hem

atic

s,sc

ienc

e,en

gine

erin

g,an

dte

chno

logy

toen

gine

erin

gte

chno

logy

prob

lem

sth

atre

quir

eth

eap

plic

atio

nof

prin

cipl

esan

dap

plie

dpr

oced

ures

orm

etho

dolo

gies

anab

ility

toco

nduc

tst

anda

rdte

sts

and

mea

sure

men

ts;t

oco

nduc

t,an

alyz

e,an

din

terp

rete

xper

imen

ts;a

ndto

appl

yex

peri

men

talr

esul

tsto

impr

ove

proc

esse

s

anab

ility

tode

sign

syst

ems,

com

pone

nts,

orpr

oces

ses

for

broa

dly-

defin

eden

gi-

neer

ing

tech

nolo

gypr

oble

ms

appr

opri

ate

topr

ogra

med

ucat

iona

lobj

ecti

ves

anab

ility

tofu

ncti

onef

fect

ivel

yas

am

embe

ror

lead

eron

ate

chni

calt

eam

anab

ility

toid

enti

fy,a

naly

ze,a

ndso

lve

broa

dly-

defin

eden

gine

erin

gte

chno

logy

prob

lem

s

anab

ility

toap

ply

wri

tten

,ora

l,an

dgr

aphi

cal

com

mun

icat

ion

inbo

thte

chni

cal

and

non-

tech

nica

len

viro

nmen

ts;

and

anab

ility

toid

enti

fyan

dus

eap

prop

riat

ete

chni

call

iter

atur

e

anun

ders

tand

ing

ofth

ene

edfo

ran

dan

abili

tyto

enga

gein

self

-dir

ecte

dco

ntin

u-in

gpr

ofes

sion

alde

velo

pmen

t

anun

ders

tand

ing

ofan

da

com

mit

men

tto

addr

ess

prof

essi

onal

and

ethi

calr

espo

n-si

bilit

ies

incl

udin

ga

resp

ectf

ordi

vers

ity

akn

owle

dge

ofth

eim

pact

ofen

gine

erin

gte

chno

logy

solu

tion

sin

aso

ciet

alan

dgl

obal

cont

ext

aco

mm

itm

entt

oqu

alit

y,ti

mel

ines

s,an

dco

ntin

uous

impr

ovem

ent

Educ

atio

nalO

bjec

tive

s TechnicalCompetency

X X X X X

Communicationskills

X X

Managerialskills

X X X X

Professional,ethical & socialresponsibility

X X X

Team respon-sibility

X X X X

Lifelong learn-ing

X X

Table 3.1: Relationship between Educational Objectives and ABET Program Criteria


lum revision, to academic year 2007-08 when the CET program was officially established,in Appendix A, from Figure A.1 to Figure A.4. The following excerpts highlight the dis-cussions on the CET program, and the exchange of ideas in each meeting pertinent to theCET program objectives:

1. April 25 2005 IAB meeting (Figure A.1 on P. 77)

Prof. Ashby and Dr. Raeisi reported for the Computer Hardware Sub-committee. They discussed the proposal to revise the Computer HardwareProgram and asked for help in finding opportunities for our students. Thepurpose of the program modification is in response to changes in industry.The proposed 4-year plan was presented and discussed course by course.Several new courses are included in this plan. J. R. Musselman noted theaddition of several new courses and asked if old courses had been elimi-nated or combined. Dr. Croft clarified what is being done. He also talkedabout how the Computer Hardware major and Electronics major curric-ula currently look almost identical except for only 4 courses. David Adlerasked about server technology. What course or courses would include thatmaterial? Brian Bridgewater asked about other networks besides Ethernetnetworking such as bus networks. Dr. Cockrell noted that we no longer areworking with components. This has become a “systems world”. J.R. Mus-selman expressed that he saw this program modification as a great move.He said that we must think about the future, and that the U.S. is becomingless of a manufacturing country and is moving more toward InformationTechnology. He asked about Information Security. He was concerned asto whether we were including courses covering security. Brian Bridgewa-ter mentioned a need for people to understand Data Segregation. Dr. Croftsaid that sometime between now and the next meeting the department willbe asking for input from the Advisory Board members on the proposedcurriculum. Brian Bridgewater and J.R. Musselman talked about WirelessTechnology and how it can be applied to the plant floor. Mr. Musselmanapplauds our efforts and thought we are on the right path but also advisedus to look to the future. A Computer Hardware Technology Survey wasincluded in the materials given to the Advisory Board members. Dr. Croftasked the board to answer the questions on the survey and return themto the ECT Department by June. There was also some discussion aboutthe name of the program and if it conveys what the major is about. Mr.Adler mentioned the possibility of using the word “Infrastructure” in theprogram name.


Dr. Raeisi explained that the program was very similar to the Electron-ics Technology program and that was the reason for revision. The Programhas undergone a 2 year review. We are presenting the results of that review


and we ask for comments from the Advisory Board. New emerging tech-nology courses are to be offered in the revised program. Some courses havebeen eliminated from the old program and new ones added. Mr. Bridge-water asked if we based our benchmark against Computer Engineeringdegrees? Dr. Raeisi and Prof. Ashby gave a course by course overview ofthe courses to be included in the new program. Mr. Bridgewater asked ifany course would cover industry standards such as S95? Dr. Croft askedfor input–we on the right track, have we missed anything? Ms. Nakan-ishi commented that some 200 level courses have been re-numbered as100 level courses. Mr. Bridgewater asked how we will differentiate our-selves from MIS or IT majors. Dr. Croft replied that the revised programwill move us to look like MSI or IT majors, but with much more added.We will keep the IT side but will retain the industrial flavor. Dr. Cock-rell explained that in 1981 the program was called Computer Technologyand later changed to Computer Hardware Technology. Mr. Bridgewaterasked if our vision for the program is plant floor perspective or IT per-spective. He sees too much computer design. Mr. Watler agreed. Thosethings are not needed in industry. Dr. Croft explained that we need toproduce a person who is employable in all facets and useful in the mar-ketplace. Mr. Bridgewater added that our graduates need to be able to“program it, understand it, and communicate it”. Ms. Nakanishi sees aproduct design person coming out of this program more than overall sys-tems integration. Mr. Roop: (1) In the power industry, there is a need forthe Computer Hardware program and that is the type of person they lookfor. (2) Small and medium sized businesses are driving the economy andthis Computer Hardware Program fulfills their needs. Mr. Watler said thatcareful advising will be needed to know what direction a student wouldwant to take. Mr. Roop wants to challenge us to be visionary– what will beneeded for the future. Mr. Watler felt like he got from the ECT Departmenta very good foundation for what he needed in his career. Mr. Bridgewatersuggested that plant tours would be very beneficial, and that after toursstudents should be asked what route they want to take–plant floor or IT?We could ask alumni to give plant tours.


Computer Engineering Technology. Dr. Croft explained the processthat has gone into revising the old Computer Hardware Technology pro-gram which has become the new Computer Engineering Technology ma-jor. The ECT Department has surveyed Advisory Board members, alumni,students, etc. After examining other programs across the country we foundthat we were already a Computer Engineering Technology program. Wejust didn’t have the name. Former students said that the “name” wouldhave made a difference in the type of job they could get. The accredit-ing group would change from NAIT to TAC-ABET. Dr. Croft described


the new curriculum and the courses. Mr. Roop: ‘Awesome, this hits ex-actly what we need in industry.’ Mr. Musselman: “I don’t see anythingon computer security”. The faculty has worked on this program revisionand voted to approve. Dr. Croft asked for a vote (7-0-0) from the Board toproceed.


Current accreditation is from NAIT. A consultant from TAC-ABET iscoming later this month to consider accreditation.

Program faculty emails with the IAB members In Appendix D we include samples ofemails between CET faculty Dr. Bill Croft and the IAB members during the period thatleads to the program name change. These emails demonstrate the serious discussionsbetween the stake-holders on program future direction and potential curricular changes.

IAB survey to approve Program Educational Objectives CET program objectives werecrafted after careful deliberations and sent out to the IAB members for approval. Thereturns are shown in Appendix D: Figure D.3 represents the survey returns summary; andFigure D.4 to Figure D.7 are copies of individual IAB member returns. As these evidencesuggest, the board unanimously approved the proposed educational objectives statements.

We believe these records unequivocally indicate that the program has reached out toIAB members. Their suggestions on program future direction have been assimilated incrafting educational objectives.

3.7 Assessing Educational Objectives

The data to assess how effectively graduates have met these objectives come from a vari-ety of sources. The program has in place the following instruments to continuously collectmeasurable and objective data: a) Survey of advisory board; b) Survey of alumni; c) Sur-vey of employers.Though differences exist in the content of the surveys to target differentgroups, all surveys have similar format and share some common questions that are in-tended to poll the respondents to evaluate these statements with respect to the industrydemands for CET professionals. For returnees who raise concerns about certain aspectsof educational objectives through survey gradings, we request them provide textual com-ments on proper ways of improvements. To improve the response rate and expedite theturn-around time, all the surveys are available online through ISU web site.

Two performance criteria, i.e., “Degree of Importance”, and “Degree of Readiness”,have been established to evaluate survey responses. Both criteria are assessed through afive-level rubric as shown in Table 3.2.

The three types of surveys carry equal weight in the overall indices for importance andreadiness, which is calculated by averaging the survey returns from the three categories.


Performance CriteriaRubric

1 2 3 4 5

Degree of Importance Very Inappropriate Inappropriate Neutral Appropriate Very Appropriate

Degree of Readiness Significantly under-prepared Under-prepared Neutral Well-prepared Very well-prepared

Table 3.2: Educational Objectives Performance Rubric

The index for Criterion “Degree of Importance” takes inputs from all surveys, while Cri-terion “Degree of Readiness” index replies only the feedback from alumni and employers.The following formula shows the calculation of the overall index for “Degree of Impor-tance” of Objective 1, Technical Competency:

ITechnical Competency =13

Ialumni +13

IIAB +13

Iemployer (3.1)

Similarly, the index for “Degree of Readiness” can be calculated by:

ITechnical Competency =12

Ialumni +12

Iemployer (3.2)

for Objective 1.

Three levels of overall index benchmarks are adopted by the program. Table 3.3 liststhese benchmarks, interpretations, and corresponding program actions pertinent to theeducational objectives evaluating process.

3.7.1 Advisory board survey

A copy of the advisory board survey is shown in Figure D.1 on Page 97. The form isdistributed in spring semester to board members. The results are collected and savedfor future reference. Many of our board members work for companies and organizationsthat frequently hire graduates of our program. They have the experience and technicalexpertise to provide a fair and candid view of skills required in workplace.

3.7.2 Alumni survey

The emphasis of alumni survey is to collect recent graduates’ professional accomplish-ments pertinent to the validity and achievements of educational objectives. Alumni in-cluded in the survey ought to be in the workforce for a while so that they have experienceto properly reflect on their college careers.

The questionnaire is designed to minimize the time required to complete. Main ques-tions include: the extent of involvement in professional societies, advancement in graduatestudy or professional certification, and promotion within the organizations for job perfor-mance. The survey is intended to be conducted on a three-year cycle, with each survey


BenchmarkLevel Criterion Interpretation Actions

Level A Overall performanceindex ≥ 4 AND noindividual surveycategory returnsaverage ≤ 3

The specific ob-jective meetsconstituents’ andindustrial need

The program contin-ues to implement theelements in the cur-riculum that corre-late with this objec-tive

Level B Overall performanceindex ≥ 3.5 ANDno individual surveycategory returns av-erage ≤ 3

The constituentsgenerally approvethe significance,and/or are satisfiedwith graduates’readiness of thespecific objective

Adjustments incurriculum or teach-ing pedagogy areneeded.

Level C Overall performanceindex ≤ 3.5 OR indi-vidual survey cate-gory returns average≤ 3

Constituents haveserious concernsabout the appro-priateness, and/orreadiness of ourgraduates in meet-ing the objective

The objective needsto be re-developed,or curriculum needsa significant over-haul to address theissue

Table 3.3: Educational Objectives Assessment Benchmarks, Interpretations, and ProgramActions


samples graduates from different graduation years. Once a graduate has been sampled,he/she will not be surveyed again. A sample copy of the survey is attached in Figure E.1on Page 120.

3.7.3 Employers survey

The survey is designed to both assess the achievement of our objectives and review theirappropriateness. It correlates closely with the alumni survey in that the companies/organizationsbeing polled are the current employers of our graduates who are included in the alumnisurvey. This provides a side-by-side comparison from different perspectives, and allowsus to gauge any disconnects between how our graduates view our objectives, and howthey are viewed by the outside world. A sample of this survey is shown in Figure F.1 onPage 158.

3.8 Evaluating Educational Objectives

Evaluation is to identify areas in educational objectives that warrant improvement, de-velop practical strategies for achieving such improvement, and ultimately implement andmonitor whether or not these strategies have successfully accomplished their intent.

Changing educational objectives is a serious academic issue, it therefore needs to beapproached in both a prudent and proactive manner. We also understand given the lim-ited resources we have in the program, i.e., active faculty, administrative support, etc, theevaluation should grow gradually in terms of complexity and completeness.

The process for evaluating the educational objectives begins with data collection by theprogram and individual faculty. The data are then assessed(see Section 3.7). The programcoordinator is leading this effort, and responsible for reporting the compiled results to thefaculty and advisory board.

Currently we are planning a three-year review cycle to assure any change to be imple-mented is in response to a consistent trend and not an aberration. At the end of the secondyear, program faculty will identify the components that need to be strengthened, included,or removed from objectives based on the feedback from the three surveys. The key ques-tion that needs to be answered in the process is: are the objectives meeting the needs ofour constituents? The third year will initiate the revision process if necessary: programfaculty will be responsible for developing a draft with proper language; advisory board’sopinions and suggested modifications will be solicited during annual board meeting. Theapproval of final language rests in the department faculty.

The program will publish any changes to the program mission and educational objec-tives online, in undergraduate catalog and other outlets that directly interface with con-stituencies.


3.9 Educational Objectives Evaluation Flowchart

The aforementioned process for evaluating and revising educational objectives, strategies,and outcomes is illustrated in detail in Figure 3.1, proposed by Dr. Gloria Rogers, Asso-ciate Executive Director of ABET Professional Services. The figure shows the feedbackloops that lead to continuous refinement of educational objectives and curriculum im-provement. Data sources and the respective individuals or units in charge of each link arehighlighted. The loop that involves educational objectives review and update is executedevery three years, it assures periodic evaluation and redefinition (if necessary) of the cur-rent educational objectives and outcomes. The student outcomes and curriculum reviewloop is executed annually, and focuses primarily on outcomes assessment and curricularimprovements. The two cycles are linked together through student outcomes report.


Figu

re3.

1:Pr

ogra

mEv

alua

tion

Flow

char

t

Chapter 4

Student Outcomes

In this chapter, we describe CET student outcomes; their relations with program educa-tional objectives and ABET a-k criteria; and the instruments we apply for outcomes assess-ment.

4.1 Student Outcomes

CET student outcomes are to fulfill program educational objectives (Section 3.3, ProgramEducational Objectives), encompass ABET general criteria (Criteria a-k listed in Criterion3), and address specific criteria for computer engineering technology program. To thisend, the following outcomes have been developed that represent the desired capabilitiesof students upon graduation:

1. the ability to apply principles of mathematics, science, engineering technology, andprogramming languages to solve technical problems in computers, digital systems,computer networks, data communications, electronics, and automation.

2. the ability to incorporate systematic methods and emerging technology to identify,formulate, and generate original solutions within the fields of computer engineeringtechnology.

3. the ability to conduct experiments competently in a laboratory setting.

4. the ability to apply fundamental management principles and techniques in businessoperations, and display leadership qualities in organizing teams and reconciling dif-ferences.

5. the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility, and the impact of tech-nology in a global and social context.

6. the ability to engage in life-long learning to pursue increasing knowledge of currentand emerging technical and non-technical issues.

27

CHAPTER 4. STUDENT OUTCOMES 28

7. the ability to function effectively in a multi-disciplinary team and respect membersof various background and personality.

8. the ability to communicate with clarity and conciseness both verbally and in writingwith peers, clients and targeted audience.

4.2 Relationship of Student Outcomes to Educational Objectivesand ABET Criteria

We view student outcomes as measurable effects of our curriculum. The particular choiceof outcomes was strongly influenced by our program objectives. As such, there is closecorrespondence between them, which is best illustrated in the matrix shown in Table 4.1

4.3 Student Outcomes and Course Learning Objectives

The CET curriculum is designed to support the eight outcomes with one or more technicalor foundational studies courses. By mapping individual course learning objectives to theappropriate outcomes, we can use the results to identify the areas of strengths, and todevelop strategies to address the weaknesses. Table 4.2 shows the connections betweenprogram curriculum and the outcomes.


CET Student Outcomes

EducationalObjectives,Student Outcomesand ABET GeneralCriteriaMatrix

appl

ypr

inci

ples

ofm

athe

mat

ics,

scie

nce,

engi

neer

ing

tech

nol-

ogy,

and

prog

ram

min

gla

ngua

ges

toso

lve

tech

nica

lpro

blem

s

use

mod

ern

com

puta

tion

alan

dsi

mul

atio

nto

ols

inco

rpor

ate

syst

emat

icm

etho

dsan

dem

ergi

ngte

chno

logy

toid

enti

fy,f

orm

u-la

te,a

ndge

nera

teor

igin

also

luti

ons

cond

uct

expe

rim

ents

com

pete

ntly

ina

labo

rato

ryse

ttin

g;co

llect

and

crit

i-ca

llyex

amin

eda

ta;i

nter

pret

,rep

orta

ndap

ply

resu

lts

appl

yfu

ndam

enta

lm

anag

emen

tpr

inci

ples

and

tech

niqu

es,

and

disp

lay

lead

ersh

ip

unde

rsta

ndth

eim

pact

ofte

chno

logy

ina

glob

alan

dso

cial

con-

text

,and

deve

lop

prof

essi

onal

and

ethi

calr

espo

nsib

ility

.

enga

gein

life-

long

lear

ning

topu

rsue

incr

easi

ngkn

owle

dge

ofcu

rren

tand

emer

ging

tech

nica

land

non-

tech

nica

liss

ues

com

mun

icat

eef

fect

ivel

yan

dre

spec

tful

lyw

ith

mem

bers

ofva

r-io

usba

ckgr

ound

and

pers

onal

ity

inm

ulti

-dis

cipl

inar

yte

ams

com

mun

icat

ew

ith

clar

ity

and

conc

isen

ess

both

verb

ally

and

inw

riti

ngw

ith

peer

s,cl

ient

san

dta

rget

edau

dien

ce

ABET Criteria a,b,f a,c a,b,d a,c e, g i, j h,k g,i,j g

CET

Educ

atio

nalO

bjec

tive

Technicalcompe-tency

X X X X

Communicationskills

X X

Managerialskills

X X X

Mature re-sponsibility

X X

Teamworkmentality

X X X

Lifelonglearning

X X

Table 4.1: Correspondence between Educational Objectives, Student Outcomes, and ABETa-k Criteria


Table 4.2: Correspondence between CET curriculum andStudent Outcomes

CET Student Outcomes

Curriculum v.s.Student OutcomesMatrix

appl

ypr

inci

ples

ofm

athe

mat

ics,

scie

nce,

engi

neer

ing

tech

nol-

ogy,

and

prog

ram

min

gla

ngua

ges

toso

lve

tech

nica

lpro

blem

s

use

mod

ern

com

puta

tion

alan

dsi

mul

atio

nto

ols

inco

rpor

ate

syst

emat

icm

etho

dsan

dem

ergi

ngte

chno

logy

toid

enti

fy,f

orm

ulat

e,an

dge

nera

teor

igin

also

luti

ons

cond

uct

expe

rim

ents

com

pete

ntly

ina

labo

rato

ryse

ttin

g;co

llect

and

crit

i-ca

llyex

amin

eda

ta;i

nter

pret

,rep

orta

ndap

ply

resu

lts

appl

yfu

ndam

enta

lm

anag

emen

tpr

inci

ples

and

tech

niqu

es,

and

disp

lay

lead

ersh

ip

unde

rsta

ndth

eim

pact

ofte

chno

logy

ina

glob

alan

dso

cial

con-

text

,and

deve

lop

prof

essi

onal

and

ethi

calr

espo

nsib

ility

.

enga

gein

life-

long

lear

ning

topu

rsue

incr

easi

ngkn

owle

dge

ofcu

rren

tand

emer

ging

tech

nica

land

non-

tech

nica

liss

ues

com

mun

icat

eef

fect

ivel

yan

dre

spec

tful

lyw

ith

mem

bers

ofva

r-io

usba

ckgr

ound

and

pers

onal

ity

inm

ulti

-dis

cipl

inar

yte

ams

com

mun

icat

ew

ith

clar

ity

and

conc

isen

ess

both

verb

ally

and

inw

riti

ngw

ith

peer

s,cl

ient

san

dta

rget

edau

dien

ce

CET

Cur

ricu

lum

ECT 130 X X X XECT 165 X X XECT 167 X X XECT 168 X X XECT 231 X X XECT 232 X X XECT 281 X X XECT 301 X X XECT 303 X X XECT 306 X X XECT 308 X X XECT 401 X X XECT 403 X X XECT 406 X X X X X X X X XECT 430 X X X

Continued on Next Page. . .


Table 4.2 – Continued

Out

com

e1

Out

com

e2

Out

com

e3

Out

com

e4

Out

com

e5

Out

com

e6

Out

com

e7

Out

com

e8

Out

com

e9

ECT 437 X X XMgmt. X X XCS 256 XMATH 115 X XMATH 301 X XEng101/105,301

X X

COMM 101 X XLiberalstudies

X X X X

4.4 Developing Student Outcomes

We believe these student outcomes represent the foundation of knowledge and skills forCET graduates to maintain competence and achieve professional success upon graduation.

These outcomes were developed and approved by CET faculty during the preparationfor ABET accreditation. The faculty are responsible for collecting, reviewing, and inter-preting information drawn from the designated courses. The outcomes assessment resultsare discussed at the program faculty meetings, where issues regarding student outcomesare identified and viable strategies are developed.

4.5 Assessment Tools

The program has decided to adopt ECT 406 Senior Project as the primary direct measure,ECT 130 Introduction to Electronics and Computer Technology as the secondary directmeasure, and senior exit surveys and alumni surveys as the indirect measures to assesshow well individual student outcomes are met. Given the start-up nature of our programand current manpower, these measures are selected because they are simple, effective, andinformative.

4.5.1 Performance Criteria

Each outcome needs to be assessed by performance criteria. The criteria have to be specific,measurable, and confirmable through evidence. Based on this principle, the followingcriteria have been created.


1. Outcome 1: Problem solving skills

1. 1 apply algebra, discrete math, and basic law of physics to build, test, and operateelectric circuits, computer systems and networks.

1. 2 program in low/high-level computer languages.

1. 3 understand database principle and working mechanism.

2. Outcome 2: Design skills

2. 1 design and implement microcontroller based control applications.

2. 2 develop digital logic circuitry using FPGA and HDL.

2. 3 design and implement LAN/WAN for small business environment.

3. Outcome 3: Hands-on skills

3. 1 conduct experiments to observe or truthfully record results following manualor proposed steps.

3. 2 apply simulation tools to verify theoretical design or trouble-shoot system prob-lems.

3. 3 examine and interpret lab results to draw conclusions.

3. 4 follow safety procedure and lab protocols, handle equipments with care.

4. Outcome 4: Managerial skills

4. 1 develop work plan with clearly-defined phased goals and time-line.

4. 2 follow work plan by observing time line and reporting progress; make timelyadjustment to cope with unforeseen circumstances

5. Outcome 5: Ethics and diversity awareness

5. 1 analyze ethics issues based on professional ethics codes.

5. 2 understand technology impact on society and environment.

6. Outcome 6: Lifelong learning

6. 1 involve in professional societies.

6. 2 be able to research the latest technological trend in a specific area using crediblesources.

7. Outcome 7: Teamwork skills

7. 1 understand individual role and share duties.

7. 2 listen to others; cooperate with teammates; respect different opinions.

8. Outcome 8: Communication skills

8. 1 produce technical document that is factually correct, with good logical struc-ture, proper format, citation, and references.


8. 2 produce technical document with a minimum of errors in spelling, punctuation,grammar and usage.

8. 3 communicate in professional manner, and respond to questions in language thatis both concise and commensurate with audience’s background.

4.5.2 Rubric

A rubric is a scoring guide that is used to measure the work of a student. For each ofthe performance criteria above, we use a rubric with range of one(1) to four(4) to rateperformance. Each rubric contains specific characteristics arranged in levels to indicatethe degree to which a standard has been met. Table 4.3 to Table 4.10 show the rubric foreach student outcome.

4.6 Assessment Plan

The assessment plan is shown in Table 4.11.


Performance Crite-ria

RubricUnsatisfactory Developing Competent Exemplary1 2 3 4

apply algebra,discrete math,and basic law ofphysics to test,trouble-shoot andoperate electriccircuits, com-puter systems andnetworks

lacks fun-damentalmath skillsand scienceconcepts,cannot in-dependentlyconduct di-agnosis andtesting.

has basicunderstand-ing of mathand scienceconcepts andlaws, canoperate sys-tems withsupervision

has solidmath and sci-ence knowl-edge, canoperate sys-tems but mayneed minordirectionson trouble-shooting

has solidmath skillsand under-standingof scienceconcepts,can inde-pendentlyoperate sys-tems, identityand solveproblem

program inlow/high-levelcomputer lan-guages

lacks under-standing ofsyntax andsemanticsof the lan-guages; can-not developalgorithm;cannot usedevelopmenttools

has basicunderstand-ing of thelanguagesand develop-ment tools;needs directguidanceto developalgorithms toimplementthe appli-cations or

Documents

Program Self-Study Report for Bachelor of Science in ......B.3 Minutes of ECMET Faculty Discussions on CET Capstone Nov. 11 2009 . . . 87 B.4 Minutes of ECMET Faculty Discussions on