Section 2: Program Educational Objectives

2.1 Objectives
The Electrical Engineering Program will produce graduates who: I. have the knowledge and technical skills required to be and to remain productive in the field of Electrical Engineering, are capable of functioning in diverse environments, and have an understanding of the importance of professionalism, ethics, safety and socioeconomic concerns in resolving technical problems.

II. III.

2.2 Consistency of the Objectives with the Institutional Mission

The Electrical Engineering Program Educational Objectives were compared to The University of Texas-Pan American Mission Statement as well as the Missions of the College of Science and the Electrical Engineering Department. The Program Educational Objectives were found to be consistent with all three. 2.2.1 Institutional Mission The UTPA Mission Statement is reproduced below as it appears in the University Catalog 2002-2004. The portions most relevant to our Objectives are italicized. The University of Texas-Pan American is a comprehensive general academic component of The University of Texas System established to serve the higher education needs of South Texas. The University is committed to excellence in instruction, student performance, research, scholarly accomplishment and professional service, and to expansion of international emphasis in all major areas of institutional endeavor. The University of Texas-Pan American is committed to providing an environment of academic freedom in which faculty engage in teaching, research and service. Students learn from faculty scholars who engage in research and creative activity to promote excellence in teaching, to develop and maintain scholarship, and to extend human knowledge. The results of that research and creativity are shared with the general public through performance, presentation, publication and public service activities. The University of Texas-Pan American strives to fulfill its responsibilities by providing a variety of quality academic programs in social and behavioral

2-1

sciences, science and engineering, arts and humanities, health sciences and human services, education, and business administration leading to degrees at the undergraduate and graduate level and to certification in selected professions. These programs are grounded in the liberal arts and emphasize competency, multicultural understanding and high ethical standards. The University of Texas-Pan American is committed to maintaining an admissions policy that recognizes the complex educational needs of its students and that provides access to qualified applicants. The University pledges itself to the fullest development of its students by seeking financial assistance, providing appropriate developmental and support services, and offering enriched programs. In addition, the University is committed to providing appropriate and current library, information technology, computer, laboratory and physical resources to support its academic programs and to evaluating consistently and responsibly the effectiveness of its instructional programs. The University of Texas-Pan American seeks to complement the instructional programs of the institution by: reflecting and responding to the international, multicultural, multilingual character of the Pan American community; providing a wide range of extracurricular activities and experiences that enhance the region's intellectual, cultural, civic, social, economic and physical environment; maintaining services that accommodate and fulfill personal needs and that enrich the academic and social development of students; involving the institution in the community by providing services, programs, continuing education, cultural experiences, educational leadership and expertise to the community-at-large; encouraging the community-at-large to contribute to the effectiveness of their University; and cooperating with other institutions, schools, communities and agencies to maximize educational opportunity and effectiveness through resource sharing and collaborative efforts. As one department within the larger institution we can only expect to directly address a limited portion of its mission. In particular, the need for providing a variety of quality academic programs in ... engineering is supported by Objective I. The need for programs leading to degrees at the undergraduate and graduate level and to certification in selected professions. is likewise supported by Objective I. The portion of the mission stating that These programs are grounded in the liberal arts and emphasize competency, multicultural understanding and high ethical standards. is again supported by our objectives, with Objective I addressing competency, Objective II addressing multicultural understanding, and Objective III addressing high ethical standards.

2-2

2.2.2 College Mission The College of Science and Engineering Mission Statement is reproduced below as it appears in the University Catalog 2002-2004, again with relevant portions italicized. The Mission of the College of Science and Engineering of the University of TexasPan American is: To support UT -Pan American's mission statement by committing to excellence in instruction, student performance, research, scholarly accomplishment and professional service, and to expansion of international emphasis in all major areas of institutional endeavor. To provide the students of science and engineering an environment of academic freedom that will insure the exchange of ideas and the dissemination of knowledge in these disciplines. To provide a strong scientific and technical foundation for students of health sciences, of education, of business, of the liberal and performance arts, and of the social and behavioral sciences that require training in the sciences and mathematics. To establish a strong research program in all areas of science and engineering. Clearly Objective I supports the College in committing to excellence in ... student performance... scholarly achievement. Objective II, by helping to foster communication across disciplines, and Objective III, by helping engineering students to understand the concerns of those outside their field, help the College to provide the students of science and engineering an environment of academic freedom that will insure the exchange of ideas and the dissemination of knowledge in these disciplines. 2.2.3 Departmental Mission The Electrical Engineering Department Mission Statement is reproduced below as it will appear in the University Catalog 2002-2004: The Electrical Engineering Department will provide undergraduate students from the Lower Rio Grande Valley a quality education to prepare them for the practice of engineering, with sufficient depth to continue their education beyond the baccalaureate degree. The curriculum provides skills that enhance the understanding of engineering sciences by including an adequate number of courses in the fundamental areas of mathematics, science, and engineering, having a strong lab component, emphasizing design, and stressing verbal and written communication, and incorporating the use of current computational hardware and software technologies.

2-3

To promote an awareness of current and emerging industrial practice, the department provides the students opportunities to participate in professional organizations, industrial internships or co-op experiences, and scholarly activities including supervised research. The department provides the opportunity for student success in the undergraduate program through a readily available faculty, who continuously strive to improve their instructional materials and the methods of dissemination, practice lifelong learning by keeping abreast of and participating in the latest developments in their chosen areas of expertise, and interact across disciplines, and liberal access to the computational facilities and laboratories of the department.

2.3 Program Constituencies

The Electrical Engineering undergraduate program serves: Electrical Engineering students; Local, state, and national employers of electrical engineers, the College and the University, the people of the Rio Grande Valley and the State of Texas.

Our constituencies were considered carefully in the formulation of our Program Educational Objectives, and we plan to involve them more directly as we continue to evaluate our level of success in meeting our objectives. Table 2.3.1 shows a mapping of some of the needs of our constituencies. The following subsections show how each of constituencies is represented directly or indirectly in the decision making process within the Department and the College. 2.3.1 Students are represented formally through a number of means: the Engineering and Computer Science Student Advisory Council, a group made up of the officers of recognized student organizations. the Science and Engineering Student Advisory Council, a group of students, one appointed by each department in the college. through Student Representatives on faculty search committees. through participation in recognized student organizations and through the elected officers of those organizations, in particular the Student Chapter of the IEEE. through student evaluations of teaching effectiveness, which are reviewed by the University administration, the department chair, and individual faculty.

2-4

through surveys of graduates and alumni.

Of greatest importance, however, is the informal feedback students provide daily in their interaction with the faculty and staff.

Constituent Students

Employers

College University

Community and State

Needs Obtain a Job Develop Technical Knowledge & Ability Obtain a Well-Rounded Education Preparation for Continued Learning Teaming Communication Sound fundamentals Problem solving ability Responsible employees Strong student performance Research program Involvement in the community Provide extracurricular activities which enhance the regions intellectual, economic, and environment Cooperating with other Institutions through resource sharing and collaborative efforts Skilled workers Economic development of the region

Objective 1 X X X X X X X X X

Objective 2 X

Objective 3 X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X

Table 2.3.1 Mapping of constituent need to Educational Objectives. 2.3.2 Industry is represented directly through the Engineering Advisory Council (EAC). This council meets twice per year, and is composed of fifteen to twenty representatives of both national and local companies, as well as government agencies and alumni. First priority in invitations to participate goes to the companies that are the largest employers of our graduates. Table 2.3.2 lists the current membership and affiliations of the council. Industry is also represented indirectly through a number of other channels: (a) the Career Placement Office, which frequently communicates industry needs to the department, (b) state agencies, in particular the Texas Workforce Development Council, which directly aids electrical engineering programs statewide to help meet industry demand for graduates.

Member
Bill Hamer Joaquin Castillo Eleazar "Eli" Perez Robert Begian George Olshavsky

Organization Name
Hamer Enterprises 3M Corporation Central Power & Lights Whirlpool TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc.

Relationship
Parent of student Employer, Alumnus Employer: Local Employer: Local Employer: Local

2-5

Ron Loidl Robert E. Talton Scott Davis Jerry Tarnacki David O. Burris Robert J. Longoria John M. Lopez Juan Bazan Cheryl Cambridge Bruce Sohn Michael Barbieri William R. Henderson Constance Valentine Ed Ward Kenneth F. Wells

LG Electronics Visteon Automotive Systems Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems GE Engine Services-McAllen, L.P Central Intelligence Agency Sandia National Laboratories International Business Machines Raytheon Company Boeing Corp. Intel Corporation Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems Lucent Technologies Kayye Consulting, Inc. Dell Computer Corporation (Retired) Texaco

Employer: Local Employer: Local Employer: Local Employer: Local Employer: Govern. Employer: Govern. Employer Employer Employer Employer Employer Employer Employer Employer

Table 2.3.2 List of Engineering Advisory Council members

2.3.3 The Community and the State are represented through a number of means. The State of Texas is represented primarily through the administrative review process that all major curriculum changes must undergo, as well as periodic program evaluation. This includes the University level Curriculum Committee, which is charged with ensuring that our changes have a valid educational purpose in alignment with institutional goals, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which has final approval of new degree and course offerings, and the University Program Review committee, which periodically evaluates departments to see if they are meeting the needs of the University and the community. We also receive some feedback directly through on-campus meetings for high school counselors and science teachers.

2.4 Process Used to Establish Objectives

2.4.1 Establishing Objectives The objectives listed in Section 2.1 are what is expected of graduates of the Electrical Engineering Program after graduation. These objectives were developed during a series of meetings held in Spring 2001, during a time when all three engineering programs at UTPA were still organized as a single academic department. The faculty felt that though the particulars of the Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering programs were different, the overall educational objectives of the three programs could be stated in a parallel way. Therefore the only difference between the programs is in the field specified in Objective I. The Engineering Advisory Council (EAC), with representatives from industry and government, evaluated the Educational Objectives in Fall 2001 and expressed general agreement with them. A review of these Educational Objectives was conducted in a meeting of the Electrical Engineering faculty in Fall 2001 after the separation of the Engineering Department into three different departments. No substantial changes were made at this time.

2-6

The needs of our various constituencies were taken into account by the faculty during our discussions to establish the Program Educational Objectives; however, not all constituencies were directly represented. As stated above, the Engineering Advisory Council did participate directly in the development of the objectives, with one meeting of the EAC in Fall 2001 devoted primarily to review of both the Program Educational Objectives and the Program Outcomes. 2.4.2 Periodic Review of Objectives The Objectives given in Section 2.1 were the result of our first cycle of development. They will be brought up for review at the first department meeting of each academic year, and a separate meeting or retreat will be held if changes are to be made. Particular attention will be given in Fall of odd number years, to prepare for the publication of the new University Undergraduate Catalog. We will involve our constituencies in the review process by submitting the Program Educational Objectives in odd numbered years to the Engineering Advisory Council for evaluation, providing a copy of the Objectives to the Engineering Student Advisory Council, and specifically soliciting comments in odd numbered years, providing a copy of the Objectives to the University administration for comment, as part of the institutions strategic planning process.

2.5 Relationship of Curriculum To Program Objectives

A much more detailed analysis of the curriculum is contained in Section B.4 Professional Component, and in Section B.8 Program Criteria. This section will only briefly outline how the curriculum is designed to support the program objectives. 2.5.1 Objective I - Knowledge and Skills For the purpose of curriculum analysis, the knowledge and skills objective can be subdivided into: (a) the basic scientific and mathematical foundation of an engineering education, and (b) the technical knowledge, and more importantly, problem solving ability developed in the later part of the curriculum. The scientific and mathematical foundation is built in the following course sequences: MATH 1401, 1402 Calculus I & II (Differential and Integral Calculus) MATH 2401, 3349 Calculus III (Vector Calculus) and Differential Equations PHYS 2301/2101, 2302/2102 Physics I & II and Lab CHEM 1301/1101 Chemistry I and Lab CSCI 1380 Computer Science I MECE 2405 Engineering Mechanics ELEE 3340 Probability and Statistics MATH 2346 Math for EE (Matrices, Numerical Analysis, Discrete Math)

The technical knowledge and problem solving ability is developed through a long sequence of engineering courses. We can organize this sequence into a number of groups, as follows:
2-7

Basic Circuit Analysis, Digital Systems, and Scientific Computing. This course sequence is intended to lay the electrical engineering specific foundations for future work. o ELEE 2420 Circuit Analysis I with Lab o ELEE 2321 Circuit Analysis II o ELEE 2330/2130 Digital Systems I and Lab Analog Track. This course sequence develops knowledge about device level analysis of electronic circuits, with applications to electronics design. It is also designed to enhance problem solving ability through steadily increasing problem complexity. o ELEE 3301 Electronics I o ELEE 3302 Electronics II Digital Track. This course sequence develops students knowledge of digital design, including modern design tools and system level considerations. Students are given increasingly difficult class projects as they progress. o ELEE 3435 Microprocessors with Lab o ELEE 4303 Digital Systems II Physical Track. This course sequence develops students knowledge of the physical principles underlying electronics and communications. The electromagnetics course is also intended to strengthen students ability and confidence in applying advanced mathematics to practical problems. o ELEE 3315 Electromagnetics o ELEE 4328 Solid State Devices Design Track. This sequence of labs is intentionally separated from the above courses, to enable projects that incorporate material from different parts of the curriculum. Students are given progressively more design freedom on progressively more complex assignments in order to build independent engineering judgment. o ELEE 3225 EE Lab I (guided design and measurement) o ELEE 3330 EE Lab II (first blank sheet designs) o ENGR 4461 Senior Design I (capstone design) o ENGR 4462 Senior Design II (capstone design) Electives. Students choose three courses according to their technical interests.

2.5.2 Objective II - Functioning in Diverse Environments This objective is met in the curriculum by developing communications, teamworking, and organizational skills based on the general education core and developed through junior and senior level design projects, and well as the ability to work with people from diverse backgrounds.

2-8

Communications skills are founded on the traditional English courses: ENG 1301 Composition ENG 1302 Rhetoric

Further development of written communications skills comes from the following courses that have significant writing components: 3 hours of Literature (frequent essays) PHIL 2390 Professional Ethics (essays and term papers) ELEE 3225 EE Lab I (three reports and lab notebooks) ELEE 3330 EE Lab II (three reports and lab notebooks) ENGR 4461 Senior Design I (semester report) ENGR 4462 Senior Design II (final report)

Oral communication skills are developed through class presentations in the following courses: PHIL 2390 Professional Ethics (non-technical presentation) ELEE 3225 EE Lab I (technical presentation) ELEE 3330 EE Lab II (technical presentation) ENGR 4461 Senior Design I (status presentations) ENGR 4462 Senior Design II (status and final presentations)

Teamworking and Organizational skills are developed through having the students work in groups, both on nontechnical projects in general education classes, and on technical projects with other electrical engineering students. In particular: PHIL 2390 Professional Ethics - students work on a team project, typically with students from a number of different majors, to examine the ethical aspects of a case and present the results in reports and oral presentations ENGR 4461 & 4462 Senior Design I & II - students work on a team project, typically with other electrical engineers but sometimes with mechanical or manufacturing students. Groups are specifically directed to develop project schedules, organize their labor into specific tasks led by specific team members, and give group presentations. Several other classes, in particular ELEE 2420, ELEE 3225, ELEE 3330 require students to work in groups, although this is not a focal point of the class.

2.5.2 Objective III - Professionalism, Ethics, Safety and Socioeconomic Concerns This objective is addressed in the curriculum largely through the general education and basic engineering component of the curriculum, with applications in engineering courses. Professionalism, Ethics, and Safety:

2-9

ENGR 1101 Introduction to Engineering - covers professional registration as well as social responsibilities of engineers to public safety and the environment. PHIL 2390 Professional Ethics - covers ethical aspects of business and technical work, as understood from a philosophers point of view.

Socioeconomic Concerns: ENG 2300 Literature, HIST 2313 & 2314 History I & II, Art or Music Appreciation - help students understand the social and cultural framework within which engineers work. ECON 2301 Principles of Economics

Applications in Engineering: ENGR 4461, 4462 - Senior Design I & II - students are asked to consider the cost social impact, and safety aspects of their projects.

2.6 Achieving Program Objectives: Ongoing Evaluation

2.6.1 Overview As the Program Educational Objectives have been defined only in the last year, formal evaluation has been limited to this period. The faculty members have always had a commitment to serve the students, and ongoing improvement of the program has always taken place, through policy and curriculum changes and initiatives in course and lab development. Many of these changes have taken place through the traditional method of informal faculty evaluation and discussion with constituents, rather than the formalized framework implied by ABET 2000. There is significant evidence that the informal approach was effective (see, for example, Section 2.6.2.4); however, we are now moving toward further improving our effectiveness by adopting additional measurement tools and processes. To get direct feedback on our success in achieving the Objectives, we have two primary tools: (1) a recently implemented survey of alumni, the results of which are discussed below, and (2) the overall pass rate on the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. In addition, we have a number of mechanisms to evaluate aspects of our program that support the Objectives, in particular teaching effectiveness and an accessible learning environment. We have had formal student and departmental evaluations of teaching effectiveness since the beginning of the program, and we have already implemented direct feedback from our constituents through the industry-oriented Engineering Advisory Council and the Student Advisory Council. These feedback mechanisms, which will be discussed later in this section, tend to address specific mechanisms (for example, effective teaching, laboratory access, services for students) that support the objectives rather than directly evaluating the objectives themselves.

2-10

2.6.2 Alumni Survey The formal survey of the alumni was conducted in Fall 2001. Our initial dissemination and incentives for survey return were not optimized, so that we had a total of only 18 unique responses out of 93 eligible alumni (20%). The surveys were distributed primarily via e-mail with the idea that it would be easier for alumni to respond. For the next cycle we plan to employ both regular mail and e-mail for distribution, along with postage paid envelopes and a letter emphasizing the importance of the survey. The number of questions was limited in the hope of improving the response rate. A copy of the survey form is included in Appendix I-D. 2.6.2.1 Evaluation of Objective I To directly assess Objective I we asked respondents to give their evaluation of the following statement, with possible responses ranging from 1-strongly agree to 4-disagree strongly. In your opinion, you have the knowledge and technical skills required to be productive in your field of engineering. 1.Agree Strongly: 2.Agree: 3.Disagree: 4.Disagree Strongly: 5.Dont Know/Blank Average Response: 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.50

2.6.2.2 Evaluation of Objective II The following statement was evaluated: In your opinion, you are capable of functioning in diverse (cultural, racial, gender, disciplines and teams) environments. 1.Agree Strongly: 2.Agree: 3.Disagree: 4.Disagree Strongly: 5.Dont Know/Blank Average Response: 77.8% 16.6% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.28

One comment, leading to a disagree response, specifically mentioned gender diversity as a problem. This is very likely connected with the fact that the BSEE program has only 10.4% female students, well below national averages for engineering, and also below the other engineering programs at UTPA.

2-11

2.6.2.3 Evaluation of Objective III The following statement was evaluated: In your opinion, you are capable of functioning in diverse (cultural, racial, gender, disciplines and teams) environments. 1.Agree Strongly: 2.Agree: 3.Disagree: 4.Disagree Strongly: 5.Dont Know/Blank Average Response: 77.8% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.6% 1.28

2.6.2.4 Further Questions The first three statements in the survey represent direct evaluations of the survey. Two additional statements were evaluated:

You believe that your engineering education compares well with the education of engineers at other schools 1.Agree Strongly: 2.Agree: 3.Disagree: 4.Disagree Strongly: 5.Dont Know/Blank Average Response: 33.3% 55.6% 5.6% 0.0% 5.6% 1.71

In your opinion, you have the ability to communicate ideas effectively in graphical, oral, and written media. 1.Agree Strongly: 2.Agree: 3.Disagree: 4.Disagree Strongly: 5.Dont Know/Blank Average Response: 66.6% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.33

The survey also had a number of questions calling for a written response. A file of these responses will be available during the visit. A summary of two key questions is given here.

2-12

Alumni were asked what course or laboratory content should be added to the curriculum. Among the responses were (a) power engineering/electronics (mentioned twice), (b) PCB design, (c) data acquisition, (d) speech, business, managerial methods, and statistics, (e) fiber optics, (f) DSP (mentioned four times), (g) more microprocessors and design layout tools, (h) more computer interface experiments in lab, (i) electric machines, (j) computer architecture (mentioned three times), (k) UNIX (mentioned twice), (l) C++. Many of the courses mentioned have been added since the surveyed alumni graduated. In particular, we now offer courses in DSP, computer architecture, and power system design on a regular rotation. Furthermore, our programming course was changed from Pascal to C++. A UNIX lab with 20 seats has been added, although it receives only limited use in the EE curriculum. These changes were not in response to the formal survey, which was only completed recently, but it is very strong evidence that the informal feedback mechanisms in place prior to ABET 2000 were somewhat effective in meeting student demand. Alumni were also asked about their recommendations for course deletions. Among the responses were (a) English courses, (b) kinesiology, (c) engineering graphics (mentioned twice), (d) chemistry (mentioned twice), (e) Pascal. Surprisingly, every one of the alumni recommendations had already been implemented by the time of the survey. In 1999 we reduced the English requirement from 12 hours to 9 hours and the kinesiology requirement from 4 hours to 2 hours, in 2001 we eliminated engineering graphics from the curriculum, and reduced the chemistry requirement from 8 hours to 4 hours. In 1998 the Computer Science department changed the language in the required programming course from Pascal to C++. Again, the fact that 100% of the alumnis suggestions have been acted upon is evidence that we are, and have been, responsive to feedback from students. 2.6.3 Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Examination The FE examination is valuable as an external, nationally normed measure of students engineering knowledge and, to a lesser extent, problem solving ability. UTPA is test site for the Texas Board of Professional Engineers, offering the test every April and October. Up through the April 2000 Exam, UTPA only received a list of passing and failing students and a comparison of pass rates with other institutions within the state. Starting with the October 2000 Exam, we also receive a breakdown of our students performance in various subject areas. This breakdown is an extremely valuable assessment of specific Program Outcomes, and will be discussed in detail in Section 3 (Program Outcomes and Assessment). With regard to Program Educational Objectives, in particular Objective I, we look at the overall pass rate. Figure 2.6.1 shows our overall pass rate (UTPA Electrical Engineering majors only) with comparison to Texas statewide pass rates for all examinees, by year. Test Conditions The FE Exam is voluntary for electrical engineering majors. We do promote the test, and have a policy of not discouraging any student from taking the test, regardless of our expectations for their performance. As an internal measurement tool, the exam would be more valuable if all students participated. However, to the best of our knowledge other EE programs statewide do not require the exam. Making the exam mandatory would bias our results with respect to other schools, and thus decrease its value as an external,

2-13

normed measure. Despite the voluntary status 51.5% of our graduates take the exam, which is a high participation rate for an electrical engineering program.
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
97 Ap r9 8 O ct 98 Ap r9 9 O ct 99 Ap r0 0 O ct 00 Ap r0 1 O ct 01 ct AV G

UTPA EE All Texas

Figure 2.6.1 Percentage Pass Rate for FE Examination

Last column is unweighted average of semester percentages.

Interpretation of Results Due to the relatively small number of students taking the exam in each cycle there is fluctuation with respect to the results for all examinees in Texas; however, certain results, in particular October 1999, clearly indicate that we fell short our objectives for some groups of students. On the other hand, our long term average of 73% passing is 2% higher than the statewide average. The statewide statistics do not separate out graduating seniors from other groups (e.g. practicing engineers) that typically have a lower pass rate. If these groups were extracted, we would probably be slightly below the Texas average for graduating seniors in ABET accredited programs; however, the difference is clearly not dramatic. The conclusion is that our seniors performance on the FE examination has room for improvement, but is reasonably comparable to other engineering programs. The detailed breakdown by subject area in Section 3 will show that our students score above state and national averages in most individual subject areas. 2.6.4 Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness A valuable means of assessing our performance is through student evaluations of faculty. While this tool does not directly measure the program objectives, good teaching is obviously a necessary condition for achieving them. This is a semester by semester process that already existed when the electrical engineering program was started, and has continued since. All faculty are evaluated on a minimum of two courses per semester, and most faculty have chosen to be evaluated on all of their regular lecture courses. These evaluations are taken very seriously at UTPA and are a key part of both the merit pay and tenure procedures. They take the form of an objective (multiple choice) series of questions, and a section for written comments. The tabulated results as well as the individual written responses are available to the instructor, and the tabulated results are also

2-14

reviewed by the administration. A sample copy of the survey and the tabulated results is given in Appendix I-D. 2.6.5 Annual Faculty Evaluations In addition to the student surveys in the previous section, all faculty are rated annually by a Departmental Merit Committee, in three areas (teaching, research, service). This serves as an additional means of assuring that the program objectives will be achieved. The teaching category are most relevant to achieving the Program Objectives for the BSEE program. Under the teaching category the committee looks at student evaluations, along with new course development, course syllabus revisions, development of new lab projects, and supervision of senior design projects. Each faculty is assigned a rating from 0.0 to 4.0. The scale used does not permit a maximum rating unless there is evidence of efforts to improve teaching in addition to satisfactory student evaluations. Faculty who are on tenure-track are also reviewed annually in the same categories as the Annual Faculty Evaluation. Tenure folders, with documents evidencing effective teaching, are reviewed by several levels of administration. Tenured faculty undergo a similar review every five years. 2.6.6 Additional Mechanisms for Student Feedback Some additional mechanisms for student feedback, which were mentioned earlier, are the Engineering and Computer Science Student Advisory Council. The group was formed in 1997 as the Engineering Student Advisory Council (ESAC), with members who were the officers of the 5 engineering student organizations: ASME, SME, IEEE, SAE, SWE, SHPE. Since that time, the Engineering Student Honor Society has been formed in 2000 and the School of Engineering and Computer Science was formed in fall 2001. The organization now has members from the 7 organizations that share the Engineering Building, and is known as the Engineering and Computer Science Advisory Council (ECSAC). It serves to give feedback on both the 3 engineering departments and the computer science department to the Director of the School of Engineering and Computer Science. This council has contributed substantially to ongoing program improvement by improving the work and study atmosphere for engineering students. Three key examples are described below, each of which, we believe, has made a significant improvement in student engagement in their education and in their ability to perform more demanding and valuable projects. (1) Improved Student Computing Facilities In Fall 1999 the students in the ESAC requested during the first meeting of the semester that better computers, better maintenance of the software, more supplies for the laser printer, and extended hours of operation were necessary in the computer laboratories. The computer laboratories in the Academic Services Building adjoining the Engineering Building were readily accessible, but they did not have the software that was necessary for the engineering students. On September 17, 1999 the students in the ESAC and other interested students met with the Interim Dean and the Engineering Chair, Dr. LeMaster, and petitioned that their needs be met with a fee collected from each engineering major. Dr. LeMaster and Dr. Villarreal presented the measure to the Provost and to a student and faculty committee and approved. The President of the University and the UT System

2-15

Board of Regents finally approved the request in Spring 2000. Funds were collected in Fall 2000 and the improvements were implemented. Evaluation in the Spring of 2001 was carried out during the meeting of the ESAC after the fall budget expenditures were presented to the group and they heard a report from the computer technician employed with the funds on all the services that were improved. The use of the fee and the tangible results it produces are evaluated continuously by a Computer Committee of engineering faculty, and periodically by the ECSAC. During Spring 2002, the question was again put to a vote of the members of the ESAC concerning the continuation of the $50 per semester fee for all engineering majors. The vote was to continue the fee, indicating that students were satisfied with the results of the new arrangement. (2) Improved Building and Laboratory Access Engineering students in the ESAC complained about the practice that campus police had of sweeping the Engineering Building of all student when it was locked at 10:00 pm on Monday through Thursday and at 5:00 pm on Friday. Particularly, extra hours of access were needed in the weeks leading up to final exams when students needed to be in the laboratories to complete their experiments and senior design projects. The Engineering department head discussed the issue with the engineering faculty members, with the university police chief, the Dean of Science and Engineering and with the campus locksmith. University policy does not allow the issuance of keys to non-employees because of the problems of maintaining security. An initial solution was implemented of writing a memo the campus police department with a list of names and social security numbers of the students who had permission to be in the building after hours; along with the installation of special electronic locks that could be programmed to admit only certain approved electronic key holders and keep an audit record of who was admitted. The police complied by unlocking the building on demand to students on the list. The process was evaluated several months later by the department and the campus police. We were successful in improving access; however, the police complained to the Engineering Chair that students were trailering their friends into the labs. In response to this second round of evaluation, we have implemented a new practice. Building Permit cards are issued to students who are approved for late night access to the building in addition to the electronic programmable keys. This has proven to be a good balance between the competing issues of security and access. There have been few reports of security problems and the student leaders express satisfaction with the resulting access.

2-16