Electrical Engr: Engineering

1CRITERIA DIMENSION ONE 
(Centrality to Mission/Validation Context)

Context:
Describe why and when the program was created.
(150-word limit)

  In 1938, Cal Poly Pomona began instruction in southern California as an extension of the Cal Poly San Luis Obispo campus at the Voorhis campus location. Subsequently in 1956, the campus was relocated to its current location in Pomona, the Kellogg Campus. With the advent of the transistor in the 1947, Electronic Engineering was born. In response to the growing demand for engineers to support the expanding aerospace industry located in southern California, the Kellogg Campus offered students the opportunity to earn a 4-year degree in Electronic Engineering. In 1982 the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Department began offering options in Computer Engineering, Electronics Engineering and Power Systems Engineering. Since 2002, the ECE Department has offered degrees in both Electrical Engineering (EE) and Computer Engineering (CpE). The EE program has been ABET accredited since 1970 and the CpE program has been ABET accredited since 2002.  

Comment:
The purpose of this question is to establish the history and context of the program-its original goal and/or focus.  We are interested in the evolution of the nature and character of the program.


Criterion 1.1: Internal and external demand for the program:      
Demand for a program will be recognized at different levels.  In some cases a program’s demand may be represented by the trend in the number of applicants each year or while other program’s demand may be better represented by recognizing courses taught as service or general education for the larger University population.


Indicator 1.1.1
Number of students enrolled in the program:

Fall 00 Fall 01 Fall 02 Fall 03 Fall 05
1,371.00 1,451.00 1,337.00 1,108.00 811.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

Comment:
It is recognized that some programs categorize students according to major while other programs categorize students by options. Double majors do not constitute a significant number of students.


Indicator 1.1.2
External Demand- Total number of applications each year for the program: 

First time Students Fall     

00 01 02 03 05
  555.00   702.00   553.00   352.00   367.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  10.00   19.00   12.00   (empty)   1.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  14.00   9.00   9.00   (empty)   (empty)

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Fall

00 01 02 03 05
  227.00   238.00   201.00   165.00   173.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  89.00   54.00   68.00   37.00   39.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  (empty)   (empty)   (empty)   (empty)   (empty)

(Value provided by the Administration)   

Comment:
These data may be used to understand the overall external demand for a program.


Indicator 1.1.3
Annual admits to the program:

First-time Students Fall    

00 01 02 03 05
  448.00   524.00   235.00   127.00   277.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Winter              

01 02 03 04 06
  7.00   11.00   4.00   (empty)   1.00

(Value provided by the Administration)    

First-time Students Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  5.00   7.00   3.00   (empty)   (empty)

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Fall

00 01 02 03 05
  113.00   128.00   92.00   70.00   138.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  47.00   32.00   39.00   25.00   16.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  33.00   24.00   22.00   (empty)   20.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

Comment:
These data may be used to understand the show rate of students accepted/enrolled.


Indicator 1.1.4
New student enrollments in program:

First-time Students Fall    

00 01 02 03 05
  246.00   255.00   152.00   90.00   104.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Winter              

01 02 03 04 06
  4.00   4.00   1.00   (empty)   3.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

First-time Students Spring              

01 02 03 04 06
  3.00   5.00   1.00   (empty)   0.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Fall             

00 01 02 03 05
  90.00   92.00   63.00   49.00   59.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Winter

01 02 03 04 06
  34.00   27.00   30.00   23.00   15.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

New Transfers Spring

01 02 03 04 06
  31.00   17.00   18.00   (empty)   19.00

(Value provided by the Administration)   

Comment:
These data may be used to establish how effective a program is in enrolling perspective students. Low numbers could be used as a justification for additional resources. 


Indicator 1.1.5
List the degree options and the number of students in each. (Fall 2005)

Degree optionsNo. Students
Computer Engineering1
Electrical Engineering36
Electronics Engineering2

(Value provided by the Administration)


Indicator 1.1.6
Internal Demand: (Fall 2005)

FTE taught in General Education
0.00

FTE taught in Service Courses
0.00

Total FTE Taught By Program
511.60

Comment:
Please note that service courses are defined as those courses consisting of 50% or more students outside the major. These data may be used to support a program’s internal demand as an integral part of the University Mission.

(Optional) If appropriate, please comment on the internal demand data
(100-word limit)

 


Indicator 1.1.7
Describe the profile of incoming students:  (Fall 2005)

First-time Student GPA

  3.28   3.27

Mean/Median GPA (Value provided by the Administration)

First-time Student SAT scores

  1,047.00   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

First-time Student ACT scores

  21.00   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25 th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

First-time Student GRE scores

  (empty)   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25 th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

First-time Student Gender
Male                         Female

93.00 % 7.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

First–time Student Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic 5.00 %
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.00 %
Asian/Pacific Islander 43.00 %
Hispanic 26.00 %
White, non-Hispanic 18.00 %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown 8.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student GPA

  2.95   2.91

Mean/Median GPA (Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student SAT scores

  (empty)   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student ACT scores

  (empty)   (empty)   (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25th and 75 th percentile scores (Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student GRE scores

  (empty)    (empty)    (empty)

(Total Math and Verbal) Mean score/25% and 75% 25th and 75 th percentile (Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student Gender
Male                         Female

81.00 % 19.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic 9.00 %
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.00 %
Asian/Pacific Islander 38.00 %
Hispanic 26.00 %
White, non-Hispanic 12.00 %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown 16.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Comment:
These data are intended to provide information about both the diversity and excellence of students in the program. 

(Optional) If appropriate, please comment on the external demand data
(100-word limit)

  It would appear that a severe plunge in the demand occurred in 2003 and in 2005. This observation would be incorrect. Until 2003, the ECE Department offered only Electrical Engineering where students could specialize in computing. Beginning Fall 2002, students could designate either Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering (newly added program). Therefore, students previously classified as EE with a computing specialization are now classified as Computer Engineering (CpE) students. Therefore, the total number of students served by the ECE Department includes EE students plus CpE students plus graduate students. For 2003 the total was 1531 students and for 2005 the total was 1312 students.


Criterion 1.2: Essentiality of the Program:

Indicator 1.2.1
How does this program contribute to meeting the educational needs of the campus, region, and/or state?
(200-word limit)  

  The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department offers three programs: Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering and Masters of Electrical Engineering. All faculty of the department work together to manage/teach the curricula of these three programs. As a founding program on the Pomona campus, the Electrical Engineering program currently has more than 800 active majors. Electrical engineers held approximately 291,500 jobs in 2005. California, Texas, New York, Georgia and New Jersey employ nearly 39% of all electrical engineers nationwide. Electrical Engineers are employed as circuit designers, illuminating engineers, power system engineers, robotics and control specialist, communications as well as in wide variety of support careers including investment banking, venture capitalists and patent attorneys.

The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics states that jobs for electrical engineers will grown about as fast as average (9 to 17%) through 2014. Increased demand for electrical and electronics goods, including consumer electronics, continues to drive the demand.
 

Comment:
Please consider the fundamental knowledge and skills, what makes the program unique, and/or how it addresses employment or market needs.


 Criterion 1.3: Support of the polytechnic mission of the university and support for campus-wide programs and priorities      

Indicator 1.3.1
Describe how the program promotes “learn by doing” activities. Give evidence and examples of how these activities are embedded in the program curriculum.
(150-word limit)

  13 of the 18 core classes and 2 of the upper division elective classes have a 1 unit laboratory requirement as well. Laboratory classes meet once a week for three hours. Each week students are given a laboratory assignment to conduct which demonstrates the theory presented in the classroom. Students typically work in groups of two to design, conduct the experiment, analyze the data and prepare the laboratory report. In addition, 4 of the required support courses/general education courses also require a 1 unit accompanying laboratory. EE students complete 19 laboratory courses requiring ¿hand-on learning¿ to complete their degree. In addition, all EE students must complete a senior project, which requires the development of a proposal including a project specification, analysis required for the project, design and implementation, testing, presentation and a formal report documenting the project in its entirety.  

Indicator 1.3.2:
List Service Learning Courses and the communities or organizations that have been affected (See University definition of designated Service Learning Courses) (04-05)

Dr. Tim Lin
Spring 2005
ECE 433LS (TCP/IP Internetworking lab with Service Learning)
Community Partners:
1. Little Citizen Childcare Center in Pomona
2. MASA (Mexican American Students Association) at CPP

Dr. Saeed Monemi
EGR 481 Fall 2004, EGR 482 Winter 2005, ECE 467 Spring 2005
Team Senior Project
1. Voice Activated Wheelchair
2. Emergency Evacuation Plan using GIS
Community Partners:
1. Ability First
2. West Covina High School
3. CPP Office of Emergency Coordination
 

Comment: 
In light of the Cal Poly Pomona mission to link theory and practice, please outline how this program integrates this goal. List or describe service learning courses.

Indicator 1.3.3
Describe how the program supports campus-wide priorities/initiatives such as Teacher Preparation, Honors Program, Life Long Learning and Interdisciplinary teaching.
(150-word limit)

In the winter 2006 quarter, Dr. Elhami Ibrahim was requested to teach GED 720, Educational Leadership and Technology, to students enrolled in the Ed.D. Program in Educational Administration and Leadership. This program is jointly offered by Cal Poly Pomona and the University of California, Irvine, along with three other partner CSU campuses: Fullerton, Long Beach, and Los Angeles.

ABET requires that all Electrical Engineering (EE) students recognize and engage in life-long learning. All EE students are required to complete ECE 464, Professional Awareness, as well as complete a Team Senior project. Projects begin with a problem statement which the students must research, consider alternate solutions, implement and test the final product.

In 2002, the ECE Department was awarded a NASA PAIR 4-year contract ($1.2M). More than 225 students and 15 faculty from the ECE, ET, CS and ME departments participated in this multidisciplinary effort to implement a ¿Smart Robotic Rover¿.
 


2 CRITERIA DIMENSION TWO
(Quality/Outcomes)

Criterion 2.1: Learning assurance       
This section informs the Prioritization and Recovery Planning Committee of the program’s achievements in supporting the university goals to promote, enhance and/or improve: teaching, learning, and educational programs; research, scholarly, professional, and creative activities; support for students; the campus environment; and, to increase community involvement.

The information adds to a better understanding of the relationship of department activities to the success of the university in meeting its mission.

Indicator 2.1.1
Number of full-time & part-time faculty serving the program:  (Fall 05)

Number of full-time faculty
31.00

FTE lecturers
14.00

Please include changes or trends that may be relevant to these data.  Also describe policies and practices for role of lecturers that may be relevant to the discipline or market conditions.
(150-word limit)

 

Indicator 2.1.2
Percentage of FTE instruction provided by tenure and tenure track faculty in the upper division/ graduate courses in the major: (Fall 05)

Tenure/Tenure Track (Upper division courses)
(empty) %

Lecturer (Upper division courses)
(empty) %

Tenure/Tenure Track (Graduate, Professional, Credential courses)
(empty) %

Lecturer (Graduate, Professional, Credential courses)
(empty) %

Please include changes or trends that may be relevant to these data.  Also describe policies and practices for
(150-word limit)

 

Indicator 2.1.3
Student-faculty ratio in the program: (Fall 05)
19.10 To 1

Comment:
It is recognized that some faculty members serve multiple programs. The Dean will assist programs in establishing the ratio.

Indicator 2.1.4
Major/Faculty (Serialized Faculty) Ratio: (Fall 05)
115.70 To 1

Comment:
It is recognized that some faculty members serve multiple majors.  The Dean will assist programs in establishing the ratio.

Indicator 2.1.5
Average class size: (Fall 05)

  Lecture Lab Activity Supervisory
Remedial 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lower Division 26.19 22.00 0.00 0.00
Upper Division 26.26 23.04 0.00 2.17
Graduate 13.83 0.00 15.00 0.00

Please provide comments about specific class sizes that may be related to accreditation or space limitations.
(100-word limit)

 

Indicator 2.1.6
Describe the status of student learning outcome assessment programs.  
(150-word limit)

ABET requires that each accredited program define a comprehensive assessment plan that insures that the minimum program criteria defined by ABET is met. ABET required program criteria includes: ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering, ability to design and conduct experiments, ability to function on multi-disciplinary terms, understanding of professional and ethical responsibility, ability to communicate effectively and ability to engage in life-long learning. The ECE Department¿s assessment process is a continuous cycle that assesses the program outcomes, evaluates whether the results are within the defined tolerances, and implements modifications to the curriculum such that the desired objectives are achieved. Constituents in this process include students, faculty, alumni and industry representatives. The ECE faculty have developed several assessment instruments and are using them for assessment purposes including a Sophomore Exit Exam, a Senior Exit Exam, a Senior Project Evaluation, an alumni survey and industry reviews.  

Comment:
Describe whether you are developing a plan, implementing a plan, evaluating data, or using data to affect the program.

Indicator 2.1.7
Describe how the program’s curriculum or teaching pedagogy has changed as a result of internal or external assessment. 
(200-word limit)

To date, the most significant improvement is the introduction of ¿Team Senior Project¿ as the capstone experience. This curriculum change is the result of industry and alumni input to the department. The overall complexity and significance of a ¿Team Project¿ far exceeds that of the former individual projects. Students work as a team with a faculty advisor to solve significant engineering problems. On many occasions these projects are multidisciplinary including students from other departments as well as other colleges.

Each year at the end of spring quarter, the College of Engineering sponsors a day long event, Project Symposium, to showcase student projects. All projects are presented to the faculty, students and invited industry guests for their review and evaluation. Following the symposium the faculty meet with our industry guests and assess the quality of the projects, the student¿s communication skills and the pertinence of the technology in the current environment.

 

Comment:
You may include interactions with stakeholders, advisory boards, etc.


Criterion 2.2: Preparation of students for a diverse/global community 
Indicator 2.2.1
Describe courses/experiences related to global and/or diversity issues that are available to students.
(150-word limit)           

Students and faculty of the ECE Department reflect a very diverse population. Nineteen of the 28 full-time faculty are immigrants to the United States; 6 are female. Similarly, the student body of the ECE department is equally diverse representing almost every continent.

All students in the Electrical Engineering program are required to complete 20 units of instruction in Social Sciences. These courses include Political Science, History, Economics, Sociology and an upper division social science synthesis course.

In 2002, faculty from the Electrical and Computer Engineering, Engineering Technology, Computer Science, and Mechanical Engineering departments received a NASA PAIR $1.12 M contract. The purpose of this award was to provide research opportunities for undergraduate, underrepresented students in Math, Science, Engineering and Technology programs. More than 225 students and 15 faculty from the aforementioned departments participated in this effort. Diversity was the foremost criteria for recruiting students to participate in this project.

Comment:
These could be on or off campus experiences international travel etc. 

Indicator 2.2.2
Diversity of the Faculty:

Male (Fall 05)
81.00 %

Female (Fall 05)
19.00 %

Black, non-Hispanic (Fall 05)
6.00 %

American Indian/Alaskan Native (Fall 05)
0.00 %

Asian/Pacific Islander (Fall 05)
22.00 %

Hispanic (Fall 05)
3.00 %

White, non-Hispanic (Fall 05)
66.00 %

Nonresident alien (Fall 05)
0.00 %

Race/ethnicity unknown (Fall 05)
3.00 %

Please describe policies and practices or current efforts to address the diversity of the faculty serving the program.
(150-word limit)

 


Criterion 2.3: Faculty research and creative activity

Indicator 2.3.1
List faculty peer reviewed publications and creative activities: (Years 03-04, 04-05, 05-06)

Department wide

Comment:
This information should be available in the annual report.

Indicator 2.3.2
Describe any resources available for professional travel excluding resources made available by the College Dean, Faculty Center, Research and Graduate Studies, or President’s travel funds. (Years 03-04, 04-05, 05-06)
(150-word limit)

The Electrical Engineering program has no resources for professional travel other than those excluded in this question. However, those faculty having sponsored research projects, frequently budget funds for necessary travel and professional development.  

Indicator 2.3.3
Describe policies, practices and resources for encouraging professional, scholarly and creative activities.
(150-word limit) 

Each year, faculty members of the ECE department typically submit 3 to 5 proposals for external funding to support their research/scholarly activities.

The ECE Department RTP criteria requires that all tenure-track faculty submit a Plan for Professional Development during their first year appointment. Each subsequent year, the faculty is asked to discuss their accomplishments as specified in their Professional Development Plan and to update the plan to reflect their current endeavors.

The ECE Department has not been allocated any specific resources to encourage professional, scholarly or creative activities among the faculty. Several faculty have sought and received sabbatical leave requests to pursue their professional/scholarly development. Unfortunately, the lack of a specific university policy to provide directly to the department/principal
 


Criterion 2.4: Quality of student advising       

Indicator 2.4.1
Describe policies and practices for academic advising within the program.                      
(150-word limit)

Our accreditation (ABET) requires that there ¿must be sufficient faculty to accommodate adequate levels of student-faculty interaction, student advising and counseling, . . .. Each winter quarter all students are required to meet with their advisor to review their progress towards graduation. Only those students having completed this advising requirement may register for spring quarter classes. All other students will have holds placed on their registration privileges.
Students having a GPA of less than 2.2 must see their advisor each quarter prior to being given permission to register for the next quarter. Any disqualified student must meet with the ECE Department Chair prior to re-enrolling. During summer quarter, all students with less than a 2.0 GPA must meet with the department chair for advising. Newly admitted students are advised during mandatory orientation. Students are encouraged to see their advisors anytime they have questions regarding our Electrical Engineering program or policies.

Indicator 2.4.2
Graduation rates: by gender and ethnicity:

Values for indicator 2.4.2, graduation rates by gender and ethnicity, are empty for all programs. Graduation rates for first-time freshmen and transfer students are provided for undergraduate programs only. These data were omitted from the reports because it was not feasible to assemble them from existing systems at this time, due primarily to conversion/cross-over issues between Banner and PeopleSoft.

First time freshman 6-year graduation rate

46.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic (empty) %
American Indian/Alaskan Native (empty) %
Asian/Pacific Islander (empty) %
Hispanic (empty) %
White, non-Hispanic (empty) %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown (empty) %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Transfer Student 3-year graduation rate

46.00 %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Ethnicity

Black, non-Hispanic (empty) %
American Indian/Alaskan Native (empty) %
Asian/Pacific Islander (empty) %
Hispanic (empty) %
White, non-Hispanic (empty) %
Nonresident alien (empty) %
Race/ethnicity unknown (empty) %

(Value provided by the Administration)

Indicator 2.4.3
Number and percentage of Students “At Risk”:

Fall 00 Fall 01 Fall 02 Fall 03 Fall 05
343.00 25.02% 370.00 25.50% 365.00 27.30% 278.00 25.09%   169.00 20.84%

(Value provided by the Administration)

Describe any policies or procedures related specifically to at-risk students (150-word limit)

 

Comment:
Below 2.2 Cal Poly Pomona GPA for undergraduates and below 3.0 GPA for graduates

Indicator 2.4.4
Number of degrees granted:

00 01 02 03 05
192.00 203.00 214.00 235.00 247.00

(Value provided by the Administration)

Indicator 2.4.5
Describe current opportunities for students to apply knowledge in the program through; internships, summer programs, research opportunities, co-op, part-time jobs relating to university course work, teaching associates, etc. (150-word limit)

More than 50% of Electrical Engineering students work part-time while attending school. Due to the very limited resources of the department it is not possible for us to facilitate programs to establish internships, part-time jobs, etc. However, occasionally we do get requests from organizations desiring to hire students from our department. We post these notices and also email all students to make them aware of the opportunity.
Many ECE faculty have received contracts from organizations to conduct research projects. Senior students enrolled in Team Senior Project typically staff these projects. Most recently faculty from the ECE Department were contracted by JPL to conduct a multidisciplinary research project to develop a ¿Smart Robotic Rover¿. More than 225 students and 15 faculty participated in this effort during the 4-year contract.
 

Indicator 2.4.6
Describe current structures/processes provided by the program to facilitate student job placement. (150-word limit)

The Electrical Engineering program does not have resources allocated to facilitate student job placement. However, the university provides these services through the Career Center. Several job fairs are scheduled each academic year, including the Hi-Tech Job Fair typically held each year in January.

On occasion, employers contact the ECE Department Office, the College of Engineering or faculty members requesting that we announce to our students an employment opportunity within their organization. Using email, we can broadcast the message to all the undergraduate and graduate students to alert them of the opportunity. As a secondary method, we also post a notice of the position on our department bulletin board.
 


Criterion 2.5: Contribution to the sense of community and the intellectual quality of the campus

Indicator 2.5.1
Describe the current co-curricular and extra activities for students supported by the program (i.e.: clubs, social events, performances.)
(150-word limit)

The ECE Department sponsors two student professional organizations: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and the Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society. In addition, students may also participate in college sponsored professional organizations including: Society of Women Engineers, Society of Hispanics in Science and Engineering and National Society of Black Engineers. Students achieving high academic success may be selected to become members of honor societies including the Electrical Engineering Honorary society, Eta Kappa Nu and Tau Beta Pi.

Indicator 2.5.2
List speakers, symposia, workshops, etc. provided by the program over the past year. 

During the 2005/06 AY, the ECE Department had the following industry speakers present at our Department Industry Action Council meeting:
· Dr. Robert Frueholz ¿ The Aerospace Corporation
· Dr. Allyson Yarbrough ¿ The Aerospace Corporation
· Mr. Barry Gilman ¿ Southern California Edison
· Mr. Hy Mai ¿ Freescale Semiconductor
· Mr. Sam Stokes ¿ Microsoft
On February 8, 2006, Mr. Robert Wu, formerly Chief Technology Officer of Accton Technology Corporation, gave a presentation, "Linking University to Industry", to the ECE faculty.

Three ECE faculty members conducted workshops for the student chapter of IEEE/ISA:
· Dr. Zekeriya Aliyazicioglu ¿ MATLAB Workshop
· Dr. Alan Felzer ¿ MATLAB Workshop
· Dr. Yi Cheng ¿ Microsoft Visual Studios Visual C++.NET

Dr. H. K. Hwang has been invited to deliver a presentation at Raytheon Corporation which will be broadcast to all Raytheon sites across the U.S. The topic of his presentation will be ¿model Based Multidimensional Estimation Techniques¿.
 


3 CRITERIA DIMENSION THREE
(Efficiency)

Criterion 3.1: Utilization of physical space            

Indicator 3.1.1
Describe the general space needs of the program and current utilization of space excluding temporary relocations:
(200-word limit each field)
                                                                                                                   
Instructional Space (Classrooms/Labs)

Six classrooms are assigned to the ECE Department. Of the six classrooms, three are assigned to the department only on Monday/Wednesday/Friday. During fall, winter and spring quarters of 2005/06 AY, the ECE department averaged 72.67 lectures per quarter and 52.67 laboratories per quarter. During summer 2006, the ECE department will be offering 46 lectures and 32 laboratory classes. Generally speaking we occupy more than 90% of all available time slots for our classrooms.
Also assigned to the ECE Department are 11 hardware/production laboratories, 3 research laboratories, 1 computer laboratory, 1 senior project laboratory and 1 open computer laboratory. We share all of our laboratories with the Engineering Technology program. Due to the nature of the equipment installed in the laboratory (power, communications, microwave), only certain classes can be scheduled in that laboratory. Typically, all hardware and computer laboratories utilize 75% of all available time modules.
 

Non-instructional Space

The ECE Department has 29 faculty offices, 11 of which are shared by full-time faculty members. We also have 2 group offices shared by 10 part-time faculty members. Frequently, ECE faculty members sharing offices complain regarding the lack of privacy when meeting with students concerning classroom difficulties, lack of opportunity to work in their offices because their office mate has a conflicting work schedule and inadequate storage space for records and class materials. These problems typically result in faculty that spends fewer hours on campus participating in department activities or collaborating with fellow faculty or students.  

Comment:
The PRPC is interested in understanding the approximate amount of space that is currently used to run the program.  Are the spaces shared spaces that may be used by other programs throughout the day, week or quarter.  Does the program utilize dedicated space that is used by the program exclusively by one program or class and is not open to other programs due to scheduling, unique equipment or security requirements? Do programs share non-instructional spaces? Do tenure/tenure track faculty members share office space?


Criterion 3.2: Utilization of human resources           

Indicator 3.2.1
Percent of total FTE taught by full-time vs. part-time faculty:

Percent of total undergraduate FTES by part-time (Fall 05)
(empty) %

Percent of total graduate FTES by part-time (Fall 05)
(empty) %

Percent of total undergraduate FTES by full-time (Fall 05)
(empty) %

Percent of total graduate FTES by full-time (Fall 05)
(empty) %

Comment:
The PRPC is interested in looking at how much of an individual program’s curriculum is being taught by full-time and part-time faculty.  The committee does not have a bias about whether a high ratio of one or the other is preferred or if a balance is ideal.  The intent of the ratio is to provide a context within which the committee can make comparisons.

(Optional) If appropriate, comment on the average FTE taught. 100-word limit

 

Indicator 3.2.2
List the number and nature of administrative support staff dedicated to the program.

Number: 1.00
Nature: (empty)

Comment:
The PRPC recognizes that the number of administrative staff is not necessarily established by a program, nor is the number of support staff necessarily an indicator of the quality of a program.  The committee is interested in looking at the number of staff (i.e. Administrative Coordinator) that may be directly assigned to a program.  If a staff person is shared between programs estimate the amount or ratio as a percentage of the assignment of the staff person to the program based on FTES. 

Indicator 3.2.3
Number of technical and instructional support staff.
3.00

Comment:
The PRPC recognizes that technical and instructional staff members are often shared between programs within a department or a college. Estimate the amount or ratio as a percentage of the assignment of the staff person to the program based on FTES in the individual programs supported. 

(Optional) If appropriate, comment on the administrative structure of your staff. 100-word limit

 


Criterion 3.3: Utilization of technology           

Indicator 3.3.1
Describe the use of computer technology to enhance course delivery and/or course administration.(150-word limit)

Of the 6 classrooms available to the department only three are equipped with computers for instructional purposes. Of those classroom, only one has access to the COE server such that access to engineering software tools can be employed during classroom instruction. The ECE Department has a laptop computer and projector on a cart and can be used on an ad-hoc basis by the faculty. More than 75% of the undergraduate courses require students to use software tool(s) associated with the course materials.

8 of 15 labs in the ECE Department are equipped with computers. Typically, hardware laboratories are equipped with 12 benches and 12 computers, shared by 2 students per bench during the laboratory exercises. The department has one instructional computing laboratory with 26 computers and one open computer laboratory with 42 computers.

All faculty and staff have computers for the purpose of maintaining student records and instructional purposes.
 

Comment:
The PRPC is interested in how technology is being utilized by the program.  This use includes regular in-class presentation technologies and course administration (i.e. Blackboard, WebCT, or similar) as well as on-line materials and communications. 


Criterion 3.4: Utilization of time 

Indicator 3.4.1
Describe the current use of alternative scheduling (i.e. evenings, weekends, school breaks and summer) to facilitate or improve student academic progress. (150-word limit)

Most quarters we offer several sections of the required laboratory classes in the evening as well as in the daytime. Typically, more than 35% of all laboratory sections and 15% of all lecture sections are taught after 4 p.m. in the evening to accommodate those students who are employed during the day.
In the summer when the budget permits, we typically offer at least one section of all required core classes and laboratories. Because some students typically need to complete upper division elective classes such that they can graduate in the summer quarter, we try to provide some of these classes as well.
 


Criterion 3.5: Management of financial resources   

Indicator 3.5.1
Program teaching cost: (Year 05-06)

Cost per WTU
$ (empty)

Cost per FTES
$ (empty)

Comment:
The PRPC recognizes that this cost changes over time depending on the number of students and the faculty members teaching in the program.  There is no target value rather the value serves as context.

Indicator 3.5.2
Current total operating expenditures: (Year 05-06)
$ 3,146,000.00

Indicator 3.5.3
External funding generated: (Year, 04-05)

Cash Gifts
$ (empty)

Gifts in Kind
$ (empty)

Annual Fund
$ (empty)

Comment:
The PRPC is interested in understanding how well supported a program may be by ongoing fundraising efforts at the program, College or University levels. 

Indicator 3.5.4
Other revenues generated by the program per Serialized Tenured and Tenure Track faculty.

Grant and Contract Activity

02-03 03-04 04-05
$ (empty) $ (empty) $ (empty)

Indirect Cost Recovery for Fiscal Year

02-03 03-04 04-05
$ (empty) $ (empty) $ (empty)

Open University

03-04 04-05 05-06
$ (empty) $ (empty) $ (empty)

Comment:
Include in this area research grants that sponsor research activities and or release time.  Also include sponsored classes and revenue generated through continuing education or Open University classes that is reimbursed to the program.

(Optional) If appropriate, comment on the resource indicators above.
(150-word limit)

 


4 CRITERIA DIMENSION FOUR
(Opportunity Analysis of the Program)

Criterion 4.1: Opportunities for growth or enhancement in meeting the University Mission

Indicator 4.1.1
Describe how and in priority order areas you would change your program to greater enhance or facilitate the University Mission if your program’s resources were increased permanently.

  • Faculty
  • Staff
  • Equipment
  • Recruiting
  • Operating Budget
  • Facilities
  • Other

(300-word limit)

In our recent ABET visit of the Electrical Engineering program, two concerns were noted: (1) lack of faculty due to number of recent retirements and the continuing strong student demand for the program, and (2) lack of equipment budget to update the laboratory facilities. Since 1999, the ECE Department has hired 12 tenure-track faculty (two were subsequently terminated) and retired 15 full-time faculty and 1 part-time faculty. Eleven faculty elected to participate in the FERP program, three of which have completed the FERP commitment, two will complete their FERP commitment in 2007, and 6 will complete their FERP commitment in 2008. The department¿s undergraduate active enrollment has increased from 1155 to 1189 (peaking at 1451 in 2001). The number of active graduate students has increased from 78 to 115. More than 200 incoming students are scheduled to participate in mandatory orientation this summer.
The ECE Department does not receive equipment funding. All new equipment purchases must be completed through the College of Engineering. In 1999, the ECE Department received a Hewlett Packard equipment grant for approximately $350K, which included 24 computers, 24 digital oscilloscopes and various Radio Frequency laboratory equipment. During the last five years, the College of Engineering has provided the funds to equip several of the laboratories with computers (in excess of 70).
The Electrical Engineering program requires a variety of equipment including computers for analysis and design and laboratory test equipment for implementation and verification of the design. Most of the test equipment in our laboratories is several generations old (some more than 30 years old) and incapable of operating in an environment typical of today¿s engineering requirements. This situation is discouraging for the ECE faculty and students.
 

Comment:
For each program, briefly describe what you would do if you had a permanent increase in state funding and why. For example, it could be that hiring more serialized faculty is the most pressing need to meet and sustain the demands of growth and insure student success. Perhaps new laboratory equipment and lab assistance is needed to replace outdated equipment, maintain quality and keep the curriculum relevant. Faculty travel, release time for a vital department need, or any other use of funds could be part of your proposal.