Self-Study Report

For

Electrical Engineering (Program)

Submitted by

Stony Brook University (Name of Institution)

Submitted to

Engineering Accreditation Commission ABET

Point of Contact: Prof. Ridha Kamoua, Undergraduate Program Director

237 Light Engineering, ECE Department Stony Brook University

Stony Brook, NY 11794-2350 Phone: (631) 632 8406 Fax: (631) 632 8494 e-mail: ridha@ece.sunysb.edu

June, 2005

2

Stony Brook University

Self-Study Report for Review of Electrical Engineering Program

Preface A. Background Information Preface 1. Degree Titles 2. Program Modes 3. Actions to Correct Previous Deficiencies 4. Contact Information B. Accreditation Summary Introduction

1. Students 1.1 Admission to EE Program

1.2 Student Evaluation 1.3 Student Advising 1.4 Student Monitoring 1.5 Transfer Credit Validation 1.6 Verification of Student Program of Study 2. Program Educational Objectives

2.1 Stony Brook’s Mission 2.2 CEAS Mission 2.3 ECE Department Mission 2.4 Program Objectives 2.5 Publication and Consistency with Mission 2.6 Procedures to Define and Periodically Evaluate PEOs 2.7 Design of Curriculum to Achieve PEOs 2.8 Evaluation of Achievement of Program Objectives

3. Program Outcomes and Assessment 3.1 Statement of Program Outcomes 3.2 Relationship to Program Educational Objectives 3.3 Relationship of Courses to Program Outcomes 3.4 Course-Based PO Assessment Process 3.5 Other Supporting Assessment Techniques 3.6 Quantitative Analysis to Demonstrate All Graduates meet POs 3.7 Curriculum Changes to Meet Program Outcomes

4. Professional Component 4.1 Required Courses 4.2 ESE Technical Electives 4.3 Other Electives 4.4 Capstone Engineering Design Project 4.5 General Educational Requirements

4 6 6 7 7 9 11 12 12 16 16 18 18 22 23 24 25 25 25 25 26 27 27 29 31 36 36 36 38 44 60 64 66 71 76 77 78 78 78

3

4.6 Oral and Written Communications 4.7 Design Experience

5. Faculty 6. Laboratory Facilities

6.1 Classrooms 6.2 Libraries 6.3 Computing Facilities 6.4 Undergraduate Laboratory Facilities 6.5 Maintaining and Servicing Laboratory Equipment 6.6 Plans for Improvement

7. Institutional Support and Financial Resources 7.1 Resources 7.2 Support Personnel 7.3 Summary

8. Program Criteria Appendix I: Additional Program Information

A. Tabular Data for program Table I-1. Basic-Level Curriculum Table I-2. Course and Section Size Summary Table I-3. Faculty Workload Summary Table I-4. Faculty Analysis Table I-5. Support Expenditures

B. Course Syllabi C. Faculty Resumes D. Reports of Various Surveys and Focus Groups E. Program Educational Objectives of other Institutions F. Lecture Schedule for ESE 441, Spring 2005 G. Qualitative Survey Questions for Alumni H. Course Assessment Reports (Spring 2004, Fall 2004 semesters) J. Program Assessment Report for Electrical Engineering, F03-S04

80 81 86 89 89 90 90 92 97 98 99 99 105 105 106

110

A-1 A-2 A-8 A-10 A-14 A-17 B-1 C-1 D-1 E-1 F-1 G-1 H-1 J-1

4

Self-Study Report for Electrical Engineering Program

Preface

The ECE Department seeks to educate engineers who will possess the basic concepts, tools, skills, and vision necessary to maintain the technological and economic competitiveness of United States.

Our faculty is totally committed to this vision by providing an engaging and challenging curriculum that is enriched with various undergraduate research projects and innovative initiatives. Indeed, we are very proud of our recent undergraduate initiatives such as the Sensor Consortium and the creation of the first online bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering.

The goal of the Consortium for Security and Medical Sensor Systems, Sensor Consortium for short, is to promote entrepreneurship and technology transfer activities through education and practical training. The two-year $600K award started 05/15/04. In a short time since its inception, the Sensor Consortium has proven itself a successful model for amplifying the broader impact of any engineering research activity. The mission of the Consortium is to promote the entrepreneurial atmosphere within the engineering curriculum in every way possible. The key element is to engage undergraduate students at Stony Brook and three other higher education institutions on Long Island in research projects of potential commercial significance. The students form entrepreneurial technology interdisciplinary teams to work on application-oriented projects. They also take a specially designed entrepreneurial course that helps them to develop a business plan for the product. The unique activities of the Consortium are described in greater detail later in Section B.5.

More recently, we are also very excited about the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s award of $300,000 to the State University of New York in June 2005 to support the creation of the world’s first online bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. The award is the result of eighteen months of planning and collaboration among our department and our counterparts at the University at Buffalo and Binghamton University.

Furthermore, we are also very proud of our student body. Our students’ achievements have been recognized on and off campus. Recently, in April 2005, our IEEE student chapter received the best student chapter award from the Long Island section of the IEEE. Students from our programs have been chosen as the College’s valedictorian in 2004 and 2005. Three of our senior design project teams were invited and sponsored by Microsoft Corporation to participate in a national competition in Seattle, Washington in March 2004. And of course, our senior design project teams are well represented in the University’s URECA (Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities) program.

In the last decade, there has been a spectacular growth of research effort in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering while maintaining an approximately constant total number of full-time faculty members. This growth is evident by the nearly tenfold increase in research expenditures; the publication of at least 14 textbooks and monographs; a total of 64 U.S. patents issued to ten of our faculty members; five IEEE fellows on the faculty, etc.

Our faculty members are recognized by the national and international community. For example, Distinguished Professor Zemanian is an Academician in the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, The Armenian Academy of Sciences, and the Armenian Academy of Engineering. He is also the recipient of the Kapitsa Gold Medal of Honor, awarded by the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, 1996. Distinguished Professor Serge Luryi is a Fellow of the American Physical Society for his contribution in the “theory of electron transport in low-dimensional systems and invention of

5

novel electron devices”. Professor Yuanyuan Yang is the recipient of the IEEE Region 1 Award in 2003; Professor Wendy Tang is the recipient of the IEEE Third Millennium Medal Award in 2000 and the IEEE Region 1 Award in 1998; and most recently Professor Kenneth Short received the Anthanasios Papoulis Distinguished Educator Award from the IEEE in 2005. Also most recently our group of IEEE Fellows expanded by one more faculty member, Gregory Belenky, cited for his “contributions to semiconductor laser technologies.”

Currently, our department has 23 full-time faculty members. We have just completed two faculty searches and made two offers. Both of these have been accepted and by the time of the ABET visit we expect two new assistant professors on board. The 25 faculty members will thus be distributed in ranks as follows: two Distinguished Professors, ten Professors, seven Associate Professors, and six Assistant Professors. Members of our faculty actively seek and have been awarded substantial research funding from the National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health, Office of Naval Research, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and the Army Research Office.

An important part of our research enterprise is the New York State Center for Advanced Sensor Technology (Sensor CAT) designated by the Governor of New York in 1998 for ten years with the annual budget of $1M. The Sensor CAT has its own laboratories, personnel, and facilities, and its faculty members span the entire College of Engineering and beyond.

Our students derive significant benefit from the faculty research accomplishments. For example, the New York State funded Sensor CAT, rooted in the ECE department, has a large effect on our academic programs. The Sensor CAT often provides technically meaningful employment to our students and its facilities are widely used in the senior design projects. The Sensor CAT helps leverage the externally funded research by channeling research efforts for the benefit of undergraduate education. Rewarding mechanisms such as public presentations further enhance the students’ experience.

In summary, our department is blessed with a group of dedicated faculty that is highly creative in research activities, well recognized in the research community and innovative in our education endeavor as evident by our leadership roles in the introduction of entrepreneurial skills to our engineering curriculum and the creation of the first online degree in electrical engineering. We believe that our faculty’s dedication to the profession has also indirectly inspired our students to embrace life-long learning, to become better engineers and better citizens as evident in their achievements in undergraduate research projects and various recognitions on and off campus.

6

A. Background Information Introduction The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering offers two ABET accredited programs – one in electrical, the other in computer engineering. A natural question arises as to the degree of autonomy of these two programs. This question was not treated lightly, but gave rise to a great deal of soul-searching. One can argue that the best programmatic approach is to offer specialized courses from Day one. This approach, however, is not cost-effective, unless the intent is to grow the two stand-alone programs into separate departments. We chose the opposite approach, that is the synergistic union of both programs, with many courses in common, especially those at the basic level. This approach is not only dictated by the consideration of how best to deploy the resources available, but also reflects the view of the majority of our faculty that the two disciplines are fundamentally intertwined. This view was supported by an ad hoc committee, composed of the senior faculty of our department and other departments of the College of Engineering with the participation of the Dean. Positive feedback was received from the Industrial Advisory Board and in our various focus group discussions with alumni and current students. One advantage of this approach is that the choice of the major does not have to be finalized by the student in his or her freshman or even sophomore year, but can be made at a more mature stage without significant penalty.

Having made that decision, we organized our undergraduate program committees under the same Program Director. The committees include similar numbers of faculty members that gravitate more towards either program. We emphasize that ours is not the only possible rational approach but that it was taken after considerable deliberation as making most sense under our constraints.

Both programs have similar Educational Objectives. We have arrived at our PEOs through a relatively lengthy process, with multiple feedbacks and adjustments. We started with a mission statement that was drafted by a senior faculty committee, chaired by the Distinguished Professor Armen Zemanian. It was scrupulously examined by the faculty and voted in after several deliberating sessions. The key issue that was debated in connection with the mission statement was whether we should offer general EE and CE programs, or somehow specialize them to our customer groups, for example, catering to the specific needs of the Long Island high-technology industry. The conclusion universally supported by all our constituents, including industry, was in favor of the general approach. Our educational objectives flow from the mission and reflect our vision of the future careers our graduates may take and of the kind of citizens we would like them to become. The PEO’s were subject to numerous feedback loops, including the examination of the current career status of our graduates (we considered the class of 2000/2001). The feedback showed that our objectives are met quite successfully, especially those addressing the preparation of our students for entry-level industrial positions and for graduate studies.

The feedback sessions also revealed certain aspects that need corrective action. For example, both our students and alumni groups were supportive about our PEO addressing professional opportunities, such as medicine and law. They agreed that our students, who make an early decision to go for a professional career, have ample opportunity to prepare for this career within the confines of our engineering programs. It was emphasized, however, that such students needed special counseling and mentoring; moreover, given the diverse origins of our student body, the very existence of these opportunities should be explained at an early stage. Our response is to invite guest lecturers for our introductory ESE124 course, as well as to introduce a more informed

7

counseling for interested students. We do not expect a large fraction of our student body opting for medical or legal career paths but our objective is to keep these doors open.

We have examined the available data for a number of other universities where both EE and CE programs are housed in the same department. Many of these respected institutions have taken the same synergistic approach as we did.

Students Stony Brook University, as a major research university, has a student body that tends to have more research experience even at the undergraduate level. We have very successful undergraduate research programs, including WISE (Women in Science and Engineering), AMP (Alliance for Minority Participation), and URECA (Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities), all of which encourage the participation of students in science and engineering research. Indeed, Stony Brook University was one of only ten research universities selected by National Science Foundation (NSF) to receive the Recognition Award for the Integration of Research and Education (RAIRE) in 1997. Students in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering are no exception. Our student body, in general, has a strong theoretical background with unique research experience. This observation is supported by our strong presence in the University’s URECA program, well-recognized student professional societies, and most recently, our leadership role to include entrepreneurial skills in engineering curricula on Long Island universities through the NSF funded Sensor Consortium. 1. Degree Titles

The program under review grants only the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) in electrical engineering. Students follow either a general track or select one of two specializations within this program:

• Microelectronics • Telecommunications

Students completing the Bachelor of Engineering in electrical engineering would have the specialization indicated in their transcripts starting from spring 2004 semester.

The most commonly used minors by electrical engineering students are Applied Mathematics and Computer Science. Students in these special programs must fulfill the same requirements as other students in the electrical engineering degree program as well as the requirements of the minor program. 2. Program Modes

The electrical engineering program is offered as a full-time day program. A total of 36 students graduated from this program during the academic year that included fall 2003, spring 2004, and summer 2004. There were 174 students enrolled in this program during the fall 2004 semester. A snapshot of the enrollment in the program in fall semester since 1999 is shown in Figure A2-1.

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT

FALL 99 FALL 00 FALL 01 FALL 02 FALL 03 Fall 04

U4

U3

U2

U1

Figure A2-1. Full-time and part-time student enrollment in the EE program since fall 99.

The EE enrollment declined since 1997 due to the increased demand for admission to the computer engineering program, which is also run by the Department. Since the last ABET visit in fall 1999, the enrollment in electrical engineering has steadily increased from a low of 112 students in the fall 2000 semester to 174 students in fall 2004 semester as shown in both Figure A2-1 and Figure A2-2. The number of graduates with a Bachelor of Engineering degree from the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering has been in the range between 40 and 60 each year.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT

SPR 00 SPR 01 SPR 02 SPR 03 SPR 04

U4U3U2U1

Figure A2-2. Full-time and part-time student enrollment in the EE program since spring 2000.

9

3. Actions to Correct Previous Concerns The findings of the 1999 ABET visit were that the electrical engineering program had an extremely well-qualified faculty with a strong commitment to the quality of the undergraduate learning experience. In addition, the quality of the laboratory experience was outstanding. The ABET team identified one concern that is common to the electrical and computer engineering programs. This concern, as stated in the findings of the ABET visit, was:

The Electronics Laboratory educational experience would be enhanced if better coordination existed among the faculty members teaching the required electronics lecture and electronics laboratory courses. Apparently laboratory exercises are sometimes attempted before the relevant material is covered in the lecture courses. As a result, students are unable to obtain maximum benefit from the courses.

The electronics laboratory courses consist of a sequence of three courses: ESE211 (Electronics Laboratory), ESE314 (Electronics Laboratory B), and ESE324 (Electronics Laboratory C). The relevant theoretical courses are ESE271 (Electrical Circuits) and ESE372 (Electronics) and were offered according to Table A3-1. A committee was formed to address the above concern and the recommendation was to delay the laboratory courses by one semester so that the relevant material would have been covered in the previous semester or concurrently in the same semester. This recommendation was implemented in fall 2000 semester, as shown in Table A3-2, and will be reflected by students graduating in or after 2004. Also, better coordination has been established between instructors of the lab courses and instructors of the lecture courses. For example, by the time students perform a laboratory exercise in ESE211, the relevant material has already been covered in either ESE271 (pre-requisite) or ESE372 (co-requisite).

Table A3-1: Curriculum effective during ABET 1999 visit Fall Spring Sophomore

ESE 271 Electrical Circuits ESE 211 Electronics Laboratory

ESE 372 Electronics ESE 314 Electronics Laboratory B

Junior

ESE 324 Electronics Laboratory C

Table A3-2: New curriculum implemented starting fall 2000

Fall Spring Sophomore

ESE 271 Electrical Circuits

ESE 372 Electronics ESE 211 Electronics Laboratory

Junior

ESE 314 Electronics Laboratory B

ESE 324 Electronics Laboratory C

10

Table A3-3 illustrates that the topics of ESE211 (Laboratory A) experiments taken in spring have been covered either in ESE271 (Electric Circuit Analysis I), taken in the fall semester or ESE372 (Electronics) taken concurrently with ESE211.

Table A3-3: Coordination between ESE372 and ESE 211

In addition to the above concern, there were three program observations: Observation 1: “The design component in the senior projects course would be less variable if a set of uniform standards were defined and implemented for project initiation and management”.

Response: Senior design projects are provided by each faculty member at the beginning of the fall semester. The coordinator of ESE 440 is responsible for collecting and posting these projects on blackboard. Projects are identified as appropriate for different tracks in electrical engineering. To provide more uniform standards, students are issued the same project report guidelines. All project reports must address the same issues such as project planning, surveys, design constraints, impact of projects, etc. Observation 2: “Adding a set of required seminars that were specifically directed toward engineering ethics could strengthen the ethical component of the curriculum”. Response: The following actions were taken:

Time ESE 211 Laboratory topics Spring 2005

Coverage of Prerequisite Material

Week 1

Analysis of DC and AC circuits using PSPICE.

ESE271: DC and AC analysis of linear circuits, new software, detailed manual for PSPICE posted.

Week 2

DC measurements, Ohm and Kirchhoff’s laws.

ESE271: Analysis of DC circuits, Ohm’s and Kirchhoff’s laws, nodal analysis, mesh analysis.

Week 3 AC measurements using oscilloscope. ESE271: Sinusoidal signals, amplitude, phase, phasor analysis.

Week 4 Transient response of RC and RL circuits.

ESE271:Transient analysis of circuits of arbitrary order using the Laplace Transform.

Week 5 Frequency response of RC and RL circuits.

ESE271: Phasor analysis.

Week 6 Frequency response of 2nd order circuits.

ESE271: Phasor analysis.

Week 7 Transformers. ESE271 : Mutual inductance. Week 8 Semiconductor Diodes. ESE372, week 1: Diodes and diode circuits.Week 9 Diodes in rectifier circuits. ESE372, week 2: Half-wave and full-wave

rectifiers. Week 10 Bipolar Junction Transistors (BJT). ESE372, week 3: BJT I-V characteristics. Week 11 BJT small signal parameters. ESE372, weeks 4, 8: BJT small-signal

parameters. Week 12 MOSFET differential amplifier. ESE372, weeks 7, 12: MOSFET,

differential stage. Week 13 Circuits with operational amplifiers. ESE271: OpAmp circuits.

ESE372: OpAmp circuits.

11

1. At least two seminars on ethics were introduced in the senior design sequence: ESE 440 (Engineering Design I) and ESE 441 (Engineering Design II).

2. Five to ten faculty members from the Department attended a two-day Symposium on Ethics within the Engineering Profession (http://www.ceas.sunysb.edu/events.html#ethics) that was held at Stony Brook on April 19, 2002.

3. A link to Ethics in Engineering was added to the ECE department’s website: http://www.ece.sunysb.edu/programs_undergrad.html

Observation 3: “The program would be improved by requiring a digital signal processing course of all majors.” Response: Starting fall 2002 semester, ESE 337 (Digital Signal Processing Theory) was added as a required course for all electrical engineering students. 4. Contact Information Department Chair: Dr. Serge Luryi, Distinguished Professor Address: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY 11794-2350 Phone: (631) 632 8420 Fax: (631) 632 8494 e-mail: serge@ece.sunysb.edu Undergraduate Program Director: Dr. Ridha Kamoua, Associate Professor Address: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Room 237 Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY 11794-2350 Phone: (631) 632 8406 Fax: (631) 632 8494 e-mail: ridha@ece.sunysb.edu Department website: www.ece.sunysb.edu

12

B. Accreditation Summary Introduction This section is the focus of this Self-Study Report and provides a complete description of how our program satisfies all of the requirements for each criterion. Before we discuss each criterion in detail, we present our mode of preparation for program assessment. ABET Executive Committee The program assessment process for the electrical engineering program is chartered by the ABET Executive Committee, a standing committee of the Department since fall 2001. It is chaired by the department Chairman (Prof. Luryi) and its other members are: the Associate Chair (Prof. Tuan), the Undergraduate Program Director (Prof. Kamoua), the EE Assessment Coordinator (Prof. Robertazzi), and the CE Assessment Coordinator (Prof. Tang). The mission of the committee is to provide directions and planning for the continuous assessment of our program outcomes and engagement of our faculty and constituents. Figure B-1 provides an overview of the various interactions among the various committees, faculty, and our other constituents, such as students, alumni, and employers.

ABET Executive Committee(Chair: Serge Luryi)

Associate Chair: Hang-Sheng TuanUndergraduate Program Director: Ridha KamouaEE Assessment Coordinator: Tom RobertazziCE Assessment Coordinator: Wendy Tang

Undergraduate Committee(Chair: Ridha Kamoua)

Bugallo, Donetski, ZemanianDoboli, Hong, Subbarao

Focus GroupsSurveys

Employers

AlumniStudents

Faculty

FacultyMeetings

IABMeetings

CourseAssessment

Figure B-1. Overview of Interactions between Program Constituents.

13

The ABET Executive committee is responsible for planning the various assessment efforts, including course assessments, the various focus group discussions, surveys, the annual industrial advisory board meeting, etc. All members of the committees participated in all, with few exceptions due to emergency situations, of these activities. Based on these activities, a report with recommendation for changes is submitted to the Undergraduate Committee. The Undergraduate Committee, chaired by the Undergraduate Program Director (Prof. Kamoua) has the mission to advise undergraduate students and to oversee the curriculum changes. Its members include three EE faculty and three CE faculty members. Reports from the ABET Executive Committee are reviewed by this committee and its own recommendation of curriculum changes are then presented and voted upon by the faculty during faculty meetings. The faculty of our program strives to maintain a high-quality program while conducting research and contributing to their professional communities. The faculty welcomes opportunities to share their experience, insight, and research activity with undergraduates. Examples of such interactions include: twelve undergraduate students from three teams of students, supervised by Profs. Doboli, Hong, and Tang, participated in a national design project competition in Seattle in March 2004; several undergraduate students under the supervision of our faculty participated in the University’s URECA (Undergraduate Research & Creative Activities) program annually. Four undergraduate students were selected to participate in an NSF sponsored project on Sensor and Security Systems in the 2004-2005 academic year. We believe that such interactions are important to the preparation of students for a successful career in industry and/or graduate school. Faculty members contribute to the program assessment process via:

• Faculty meetings (approximately monthly); • Faculty Focus group discussions (annual, from 2003-2004 academic year); • Student Focus group discussions (with selected faculty members; at least once a year); • Alumni Focus group discussions (with selected faculty members; annual, from 2003-2004); • Industry Focus group discussions (with selected faculty members; annual, from 2003-2004); • Review and update Course Objectives for each course taught (each semester); • Provide Course Assessment for each course taught (each semester); • Consultation and informal discussions with Undergraduate Committee and other members

of the faculty (as needed); • Personal discussions with students (as needed); • Interactions with members of the Industrial Advisory Board (annual).

Our constituents, the students, alumni, and employers, are all well informed of our programs through our departmental web page (www.ece.sunysb.edu), and interactions with our faculty. To provide an avenue for their feedback to our programs, various focus group discussions and surveys are conducted on a regular basis with these groups. The following is a brief summary of the feedback mechanism for our constituents. A detailed summary of the surveys and focus groups can be found in Section 3.4. Students are the focus of our program. Our program is designed to meet the needs of our students. In the short term, students need to learn the latest instrumentation and modern software tools to be competitive professionally. In the long term, students need a firm foundation in the fundamentals and breadth in electrical engineering principles to enable them to work on and manage a variety of

14

projects and to pursue advanced study in electrical and computer engineering. Our students use the following mechanisms to provide feedback to our programs:

• End-of-term Course Evaluation Survey (each term) • Internship Survey (annual) • Junior Survey (annual) • Senior Exit Survey (annual) • Focus Group discussions (at least once a year) • Personal discussions with faculty and the Undergraduate Program Director

Alumni participate in our program evaluation process through: • Alumni Surveys • Alumni Focus Group discussions

Employers provide feedback to our program mostly via: • Industry Focus Group (annual from 2003-2004) • Industrial Advisory Board meeting (annual)

The Industrial Advisory Board’s mission is to support both programs (electrical engineering and computer engineering) of the Department. Table B-1 lists the current members of the board.

Table B-1: Members of Industrial Advisory Board

Company Representative ADEMCO Ted Simon, VP AIL/EDO Ed Palacio, General Manager

AMP Kamal Mahajan, President Anorad Jim Smith, President BAE Systems Henry Bachman Brookhaven National Lab Ralph James, Assoc. director Cablevision Thomas C. Dolan, Senior VP CardioMagImg Carl Rosner, President/CEO Computer Associates Clare Cunniffe, VP Enterprise Solutions - Security Festo Corp Hans Zobel, President, VICE President Fuel Cell Components Bernard Rachowitz, President/CEO Keyspan Edward J. Youngling, VP Electric Service KLD Lab Dan Magnus, Vice President LIPA Bruce Germano, VP Microsoft Corp. Alex Daley, Program Mgr, Univ. relations Minos Partners John Pyrovolakis, President NGC Robert Klein, VP Engineering Omnicon Group Scott Abrams, President Pall Corp. Steve Chisholm, Sr. Corporate VP: Parker Hannifin Martin Hewitt, Director of Marketing Servo Corp Steve Barre, President Solar Physics John Coleman, President Spectron Sensors Pascal Lamarie, VP Engineering Symbol Technologies Lou Steinberg, VP and CTO, VP for Research Telephonics Bert Moskowitz, VP Engineering, Communications Sys. Div. Veeco Instruments Emmanuel Lakios, President, Worldwide Field Operations

15

During its annual meeting, the Department’s Program Education Objectives and Program Outcomes are presented to the board to seek their inputs and comments. Assessment Process Implementation Following extensive deliberations, the ABET Executive Committee adopted the two-loop process for assessment in Figure B-2. There are three components of the entire process: (i) Program Education Objectives (PEO), (ii) Program and Curriculum, and (iii) Outcome Assessments.

Program Educational Objectives Program & Curriculum

Faculty and Constituents

PEOs EvaluatePEOs

Faculty and Constituents

FacilitiesInstitutional Support

Courses

Outcome Assessment

CompareDesired Program Outcomes Acutal Program Outcomes

Figure B-2: Program assessment process for electrical engineering program. The Program Education Objectives (PEOs) establish the expected accomplishments of our graduates during the first several years following graduation from the program. These objectives were initiated by a Committee chaired by Prof. Zemanian and were approved by the entire faculty in 1999. They are published on our departmental web pages and the Undergraduate Guides and are periodically reviewed by our constituents through IAB (Industrial Advisory Board) meetings and various focus groups and surveys with students, alumni, and employers. Furthermore, to obtain direct data for measuring the success of PEOs from our graduates, we have compiled a list of 110 graduates of EE and CE in the Years 2000 and 2001. Five groups of three faculty members each were assigned to contact these graduates by phone. Each group had a leader to coordinate contacting about twenty graduated alumni to ask them ten questions. These questions

16

focus mostly on their career path and whether our program was sufficient in preparing them for their careers. A list of these questions is attached in Appendix I-G. However, we found that some of our contact information was outdated and we only received 14% responses. More detailed discussion is provided in section 2.8. Our program and curriculum are designed to achieve the PEOs. To ensure that these PEOs are met, we have set up a system of evaluation that includes:

• Course Objectives and Course Assessments for each course by instructors at the beginning and end of each semester;

• Focus Group discussions with students, alumni, employers and faculty; and • Surveys of students, alumni, and employers.

Outcome Assessments are achieved by comparing the desired program outcomes with the actual program outcomes to produce feedbacks needed to improve the program. The desired program outcomes are established as metric goals by our faculty, whereas the actual program outcomes are results from the Course Assessments by mini-committees based on students’ performance in courses. We believe that interactions of these three components foster a systematic pursuit of improvement in the quality of our program, which meets the needs of our constituents in a dynamic and competitive environment. Since the establishment of this system in the 2001-2002 academic year, changes have been implemented based on feedback from Outcome Assessments. A detailed description of these changes is documented in Section 3.7. 1. Students The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering offers two undergraduate programs: electrical engineering (EE) and computer engineering (CE). There are over 300 students overall, with 163 majoring in EE. Most of the students come from New York State, specifically Long Island and the boroughs of New York City. Approximately 35 to 70 students graduate each year. Students are admitted to either program directly from high school, on-campus transfer, or off-campus transfer. 1.1 Admission to Electrical Engineering Program Stony Brook is a highly selective Research I (Carnegie Foundation classification) institution; it enrolls those students who demonstrate the intellectual curiosity and academic ability to succeed. While there is no formal deadline for freshman applicants, students are encouraged to apply for fall admission by December 1 and for spring admission by November 1. Prospective students can access the application procedures and all relevant details online at http://www.stonybrook.edu/ugadmissions/freshman/ and may submit the completed application either online or through the mail.

17

1.1.1 Freshman Admission Students interested in the electrical engineering major must indicate their specific interest on the admissions application. Qualified students are admitted directly into the program. Admission to the University does not guarantee acceptance into electrical engineering. For direct admission, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions reviews applications using criteria stipulated by the CEAS (College of Engineering and Applied Sciences) faculty in 1996. This includes: (1) successful completion of a New York State Regents curriculum (as applicable) with Regents Examination grades not less than 80 in all subjects; (2) completion of four units of mathematics including Sequential Mathematics; (3) four units of science including Chemistry and Physics; (4) an unweighted high school average of 88 or higher; and (5) a combined SAT score of at least 1100 with math being at least 600. If the students are either from out of New York State or attend a NYS school that does not offer the Regents examination, final scores in math, physics and chemistry are considered. 1.1.2 Admission from Other Stony Brook Programs Approximately 50 percent of CEAS baccalaureate graduates were admitted to their program major after completion of one or more semesters at Stony Brook, either because they did not apply earlier, did not initially meet the admission criteria, or have changed their personal goals. On-campus students apply through the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. The admission criteria are based on completing at least 11 credits of required mathematics, physics, and engineering courses with an overall GPA of at least 3.0 in required courses. Under special circumstances, students with a GPA between 2.8 and 3.0 may petition for admission to electrical engineering. The undergraduate committee in the department considers these petitions on the basis of individual cases.

The Undergraduate Program Director reports the names and student ID numbers of students for whom admission to the major has been approved, to the CEAS Undergraduate Student Office where the change of major is recorded in the online system and a file is established for each newly admitted student. 1.1.3 Admission of Transfer Students Students, who have been registered at a regionally accredited college or university after graduating from high school, are considered transfer students for Stony Brook admission purposes. Applicants are required to have performed well in a strong academic program. If the applicant has earned fewer than 24 credits, high school transcripts must also be submitted with the application. Transfer student applications are considered by the university’s transfer office. To be admitted to electrical engineering, transfer students need to have completed first year mathematics and physics courses (Calculus I and II, Physics I and II) with an average GPA of 3.0 or higher. If a transfer student is admitted to the university but not to electrical engineering, the student could still apply to electrical engineering based on courses taken at Stony Brook. The requirement for acceptance into the major is a minimum GPA of 3.0 in at least 11 credits of required courses.

18

1.2 Student Evaluation Students are evaluated mainly through the assignment of grades in individual courses taken by the student. The university grading system consists of letter grades of A, B, C, D, F, and in certain circumstances the S (satisfactory) grade or U (unsatisfactory) grade. Each instructor of a course offered by the department is required to include a description of the grading system in the syllabus that is handed out to students. In general the grading is based on evaluating some or all of the following aspects of student work:

• Exams, quizzes • Homework assignments • Laboratory reports • Project reports: e.g. senior design, research, and internships • Oral presentations • Attendance, participation • Student portfolio

All courses required for the electrical engineering program, must be taken for a letter grade. For certain basic and fundamental courses, a minimum letter grade of C is required; otherwise the University’s passing grade is D. The following courses must be completed with a grade of C or higher:

• AMS 151 or MAT 131 (Calculus I) and AMS 162 or MAT 132 (Calculus II) • PHY 131/133 (Physics I) and PHY 132/134 (Physics II) • ESE 211, ESE 231, ESE 271, ESE 372, ESE 218, ESE 337 • D.E.C. A (English composition) •

Microelectronics Specialization • ESE 373, ESE 311, ESE 355, ESE 330, ESE 304

Telecommunications Specialization • ESE 340, ESE 342, ESE 347, ESE 346, ESE 363

General: • Five ESE technical electives.

Students whose cumulative G.P.A. falls below 2.0 are placed on probation. They will subsequently be suspended, if they fail to achieve good academic standing in the following semester. The College of Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS) has an academic standing and appeals committee that considers petitions for reinstatement. 1.3 Student Advising

There are a number of venues on the University campus which provide academic advising services:

1.3.1 General Advising

The two primary advising offices are the Academic and Pre-Professional Advising Center, which serve students with undeclared major and students enrolled in programs of the College of Arts and

19

Sciences, and the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences Undergraduate Student Office. Academic advising staff in both offices meet with students one-on-one to provide information about academic regulations and requirements; to assist them with course scheduling issues; to provide information about the petition process for appeals of academic standing issues and for waivers of specific requirements; and to make referrals as needed for tutoring or counseling. These are also the offices to which students in academic jeopardy are referred for special advising.

1.3.2 CEAS (College of Engineering and Applied Sciences) Advising The CEAS Undergraduate Student Office is responsible for the administration of student services to the students of the College’s baccalaureate programs and to students seeking admission to these programs. Its staff provides general academic advising and information about the requirements for admission to CEAS majors and about the College Diversified Education Curriculum (D.E.C.) requirements. It is also responsible for system degree clearance of students. It receives and processes student petitions and grievances for the College Committee on Academic Standing and Appeals as well as allegations of academic dishonesty in CEAS courses, and coordinates the academic judiciary process in these cases. Its staff advises students about administrative procedures, and assists them with the processing of transfer credits. The College’s Undergraduate Student Office services also include advising for CEAS programs at new student orientations, direct notification (by mail and electronic mail) to students about new regulations or academic requirements that may affect them, liaison with the academic advisors in the Undergraduate Colleges, presentations in junior-level CEAS courses regarding pre-graduation requirements review, and personal transcript review, especially for D.E.C. and University degree requirements at any time upon student request. As part of the advising effort, the CEAS Undergraduate Student Office produces a bi-monthly newsletter called SPOTLIGHT. This publication provides an avenue of expression for all of the student clubs and societies recognized by the College as well as the departmental undergraduate programs. Its goal is to provide a medium whereby students, staff, and faculty can communicate regularly. Part of the newsletter is dedicated to Career Center articles such as ‘How to Prepare for an Interview’ or ‘Engineering an Effective Resume’. Copies are distributed throughout the campus and in all CEAS departments. CEAS faculty members participate each semester in the campus-wide “Major Event” in which faculty members from all academic departments congregate in a central location to provide information to all interested students about their own departmental majors’ academic requirements and to provide academic advising about changes of major, additions of minors, and areas of specialization as applicable. 1.3.3 ECE (Electrical and Computer Engineering) Advising In addition to advising provided by the university and the CEAS College, the ECE Department is committed to providing excellent advising to all of its students. The department has an undergraduate office with a full-time staff assistant (Mrs. Carolyn Huggins) who is responsible for:

• Maintaining a folder on each student in the major. The folder contains student’s transcript, major and track; a checklist of courses required for the major (see Fig. B1-1); and a record of requests made by the student and the Program Director’s decisions.

20

• Helping students register for courses. • Placing a registration block on freshman and transfer students to prevent them from

registering for courses without seeing an advisor. • Process transfer evaluation forms. • Updating the Department’s undergraduate guides. • Posting office hours of the undergraduate advisors.

The Department has an undergraduate committee that consists of the Undergraduate Program Director and six faculty members with three each in electrical engineering and computer engineering. In addition to curriculum issues, the members of the undergraduate committee also serve as advisors. Each advisor is required to have at least four hours each week for walk-in advising. During these office hours students need not make an appointment to see an advisor. Additionally, the department mandates that all freshmen students in their second semester and transfer students in their first semester see an academic advisor during the pre-registration period. This compulsory advising is enforced through a registration block, which is removed only after the student’s course plan is approved by an advisor. The Department has an extensive advising and monitoring system to ensure that each and every student follows the published curriculum and meets the ABET criteria before graduation. Special attention is paid to advising students to insure completion of their degree requirements in a timely manner. The advising and monitoring in the Department are implemented in several ways:

• All full-time faculty members participate in advising through weekly scheduled office hours. • The departmental Undergraduate Committee, composed of six faculty members and the

undergraduate program director, take a leading role in advising. • There are special weeklong periods in the middle of the fall and spring semesters, called Prime

Times, when students are encouraged to meet advisors and discuss with them their current courses and academic standing. Plans for taking courses in the following semester are also reviewed.

• All freshmen, transfer students, and students with poor academic standing are required to see an advisor before they can register for courses. Placing advising blocks on these students enforces this requirement.

• The Department publishes a comprehensive guide, which is printed annually and provides updated information about the major. The guide includes an optional specialization declaration form, which allows long-term planning for the students and a check-off sheet for use by students to keep track of their progress. The guide is also available on the department’s website.

• Students are encouraged to have their academic progress evaluated frequently. The checklist in Figure B1-1 is an example copy of the check-off sheet for the general track, which is placed in the student file after being admitted to the major.

• All students in their senior year receive a letter from the Undergraduate Director with a list of courses that must be completed and conditions to be met for successful graduation.

• Uniformity and control of prerequisites is strictly enforced, and its success is guaranteed through a centralized clearing process administered by the undergraduate staff assistant.

• Individual faculty members do not have the authority to approve any student’s request for adding courses. The Registrar's Office only accepts student registration forms that bear the departmental stamp. The undergraduate office checks the necessary prerequisites and Undergraduate Director makes a determination in case of a dispute.

21

• The electrical engineering major requires the completion of six ESE technical electives for the general track and two for the Telecommunications and Microelectronics tracks, with a grade of C or better, and two non-ESE electives for the general track and one non-ESE elective for the telecommunications and microelectronics tracks. An up-to-date list of technical electives, both ESE and non-ESE, is included in the undergraduate guide, and is periodically reviewed. Students get assistance in selecting some of these courses.

• Course substitution is permitted, but only upon request by a student. The Undergraduate Program Director and, in certain cases, the Undergraduate Committee evaluate this request.

• In choosing D.E.C. courses for meeting graduation requirements, students get assistance from the office of the Assistant Dean for Undergraduate Studies.

AMS 151 ____________ (or MAT 131) AMS 161 ____________ (or MAT 132) AMS 210 ___________ (or MAT 211) ESE 123 ___________ ESE 218 ___________ ESE 300 ___________ ESE 314 ____________ ESE4 337 ____________ ESE 440 ____________

PHY 131 ___________ PHY 133 ___________ PHY 132 ___________ PHY 134 ____________ AMS 261 ____________ (or MAT 203) ESE 124 _____________ ESE 231 _____________ ESE 305 _____________ ESE 319 _____________ ESE 372 ____________ ESE 441 _____________

CHE198 ___________ (or CHE 131 and 132) CHE 199 ___________ (or CHE 133 or CHE 134) AMS 361 ____________ (or MAT 303) ESE 211 ______________ ESE 271 ______________ ESE 306 _________ ESE 324 ______________ ESE 380 ____________

Choice of six ESE electives from Appendix C in the Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Guide. ESE ___________ ESE ___________

ESE ___________ ESE ___________

ESE ___________ ESE ___________

Choice of two technical electives from Appendix D in the Electrical Engineering Undergraduate Guide. ___________

___________

Figure B1-1: Check-off sheet for the electrical engineering general specialization. (This form is included in the student’s folder. Courses in Boldface must be completed with a “C” grade or better.)

22

As discussed earlier, all students see an advisor at least once before graduation. Based on feedback from students, it was decided to further improve the advising process by instituting mandatory advising at least once a year for each student. This change was discussed and approved in a faculty meeting held on April 14, 2005 for implementation starting in the fall 2005 semester. Three advising sessions will be held during University Campus time (Wednesdays 12:50 pm to 2:10 pm), when no classes are scheduled. Half of all students will be required to attend one of these sessions in the fall semester and the other half in the spring semester. Undergraduate Committee members will be available during these sessions to advise students. Once a student has attended an advising session, the advising block is removed.

1.4 Student Monitoring One of the functions of the CEAS Undergraduate Student Office is to monitor students’ academic standing and provide advising services to students in academic jeopardy. Effective from the fall 1999 semester, the University instituted a campus-wide system for early identification of students in academic jeopardy. In past years, students who performed poorly were placed “on notice” and it was recommended that they see an academic advisor. Only a small percentage followed the recommendation. The new process defined seven levels of academic jeopardy ranging from first warning through probation, suspension, and dismissal. These are based on semester and cumulative grade point averages. At the end of the fall and spring semesters, the Registrar’s Office produces a report that lists all students who fall into one of the jeopardy levels. A letter is sent to these students explaining their status and informing them of the need for a mandatory meeting with an academic advisor. Each of these student’s records is blocked in the SOLAR system so that he or she receives a message on the system and cannot register or change registration without conferring with an academic advisor in a specific office. During the advising session (which for CEAS students takes place in the CEAS Undergraduate Student Office) the advisor determines the cause of the student’s poor performance, advises the student about methods to improve academic performance, makes any necessary referrals (e.g. to the Counseling Center, Infirmary, Financial Aid Office, etc.) and then removes the block, allowing the student to adjust the next semester registration as needed and based on the conclusions of the meeting. The goal of this process is to reach and assist students in academic jeopardy through proactive means and required in-person advising thereby addressing students’ special needs.

Since the inception of this policy, while the overall percentage of students in academic jeopardy has remained relatively stable, the increase in the number of students who change majors and/or are returned to satisfactory academic standing indicates that the mandatory advising sessions have a positive impact on the student retention.

Within the EE program, students are required to see an advisor if their GPA drops below 2.0. A graduation check is performed automatically for every student who files for graduation. The undergraduate program director will examine the student’s record and indicate on the corresponding folder the courses still require for the major. The graduation check is not restricted to senior students. Any student may request a graduation check to be performed at any time. The general educational requirements of the university, applicable to engineering students, consist of 10 courses in three main categories: University Skills; Disciplinary Diversity; and Expanding Perspectives and Cultural Awareness. The undergraduate student office in the College of

23

Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS) is responsible for advising and clearing students for their general education requirements.

1.5 Process for Validation of Transfer Credits The departmental policy with regard to transfer credits is the following:

• Credits earned at previously attended accredited institutions are accepted for transfer and are applied towards the total 128 credit hours required for graduation. The Department responsible for teaching the Stony Brook course determines evaluation of equivalency. Transfer credits are entered on the official University transcript, but previous grades or cumulative averages are not.

• No transfer course with a grade lower than “C” may be counted as meeting major

requirements. Forms for requesting the evaluation of specific courses for the major are available at the College’s Undergraduate Student Office. Any applicant who has completed college-level study at an institution outside of the United States must request an evaluation of each course.

• Credits earned at community, agricultural, and technical colleges are usually considered lower-

division credits. Courses taken at other universities and colleges in a technology curriculum are not transferred since they do not meet technical elective requirements.

• To simplify the process of credit transfer from schools with a considerable number of students

joining the Department, transfer credit guides are used. These guides are periodically updated and available online at www.stonybrook.edu/admissions/transfer.

• Students who want to transfer a course from a different institution must provide a catalog

description of the course, a syllabus, a transcript, a textbook (in some cases), and course material (such as laboratory reports, quizzes, and exams). A faculty member who has recently taught a similar course in the department will perform the evaluation for equivalency.

• The Undergraduate Program Director of the Department signs all the forms for transfer credit

evaluation, thereby monitoring the evaluation process and assuring performance and consistency. The transfer evaluation forms are processed by the department’s undergraduate office and copies are included in the student’s folder.

• The cognizant department in the university evaluates non-ESE courses.

Upon matriculation, the Transfer Office evaluates the student’s official transcript(s) and enters the total number of credits accepted in transfer courses into the student’s Stony Brook transcript. The courses are evaluated individually for all courses passed with a letter grade of C or higher at a regionally accredited institution. No credit is given for courses with grades of C- or lower. All acceptable credits are added to the Stony Brook record as transfer credit. Transfer course grades are not shown nor are they included in the calculation of the student’s Stony Brook grade point average. The evaluation includes lower- versus upper-division credit and applicability for fulfillment of general education requirements to meet the University’s Diversified Education Curriculum (D.E.C.)

24

requirements. Almost all credits earned at community colleges are considered to be lower-division (100 or 200 freshman or sophomore) credit. Also added to the Stony Brook transcript are credits earned through standardized external examinations such as Advanced Placement (AP), CLEP, Excelsior College Examinations (New York State), and Stony Brook’s own Challenge Program. If credits are awarded that do not meet any specific degree requirement, those credits are considered electives in the student’s program. Transfer students admitted to electrical engineering, whether at the time of Universit admission or in a subsequent semester, are responsible for completing a Transfer Credit Evaluation Form for each course completed at another institution that is to be used to meet a specific requirement of the major. The exception to this requirement is for those courses completed at SUNY and CUNY institutions and nearby community colleges that have been pre-evaluated and included in the published equivalency tables and Guide referred to above. These transferred courses are evaluated by the faculty of the analogous Stony Brook department offering similar courses. Evaluation is based on the official catalog course description of the instructing institution and/or the syllabus of the course, credit hours, textbook used and, in some cases, a consultation with the student. The faculty member(s) certifies course equivalence as applicable. With faculty approval, the course is deemed equivalent and accepted by the department in meeting program major requirement. If the course is not deemed equivalent in that it has not covered the topics covered by the relevant Stony Brook course, the student must take the course here at Stony Brook. The department maintains files for transfer students that include the relevant documentation for transfer courses accepted to meet program requirements. For mathematics courses, evaluation also considers the student’s score on the Stony Brook Mathematics Placement Examination administered online prior to summer and intersession orientation sessions. 1.6 Verification of Student Program of Study For a student to be cleared for the electrical engineering major, the following steps are taken:

• The Undergraduate Program Director of the Department verifies that a student has completed the major requirements.

• The Assistant Dean for undergraduate students in the College of Engineering and

Applied Science (CEAS) verifies that the requirements for the Diversified Education Curriculum are met.

• The Assistant Registrar for degree certification and degree audit checks if the student

has outstanding parking tickets or owes money to the university prior to issuing a diploma.

• The office of Records mails Diplomas to the graduates.

25

2 Program Educational Objectives In this section, we present the mission of Stony Brook University, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. The Program Education Objectives (PEOs) of the electrical engineering program and the process by which the PEOs are determined, evaluated, and met are then reviewed. 2.1 Stony Brook’s Mission Statement:

• To provide comprehensive undergraduate, graduate, and professional education of the highest quality;

• To carry out research and intellectual endeavors of the highest international standards that advance theoretical knowledge and are of immediate and long-range practical significance;

• To provide leadership for economic growth, technology, and culture for neighboring communities and the wider geographic region;

• To provide state-of-the-art innovative health care, while serving as a resource to a regional health care network and to the traditionally underserved;

• To fulfill these objectives while celebrating diversity and positioning the University in the global community.

2.2 Mission of the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences:

• Comprehensive high-quality undergraduate education. • Advanced graduate education and research opportunities for graduate students and

practicing professionals. • Leading edge research programs that probe the frontiers of knowledge and contribute to the

development of globally competitive economies, both regionally and nationally. • Technology transfer that promotes industrial development, with particular emphasis on the

needs of Long Island industry.

2.3 ECE Mission and Needs of Constituencies:

The ECE Department seeks to educate engineers who will possess the basic concepts, tools, skills, and vision necessary to maintain the technological and economic competitiveness of United States. The department achieves this through a balance of required courses and judicious choices of technical electives in three stages of undergraduate studies in electrical engineering. The first teaches students basic mathematics and science; the second teaches the fundamental techniques of analysis and design of systems; and the third teaches in depth some specialized areas of electrical and computer engineering through choices of technical electives taken during the junior and senior years.

The mission of the ECE Department continues a tradition of excellence by honoring our

commitments to students, faculty, alumni, and the University. More specifically,

for our students, we strive: • To provide undergraduates with the broad education necessary for careers in the

public/private sector, or to pursue advanced professional degrees;

26

• To provide undergraduates with a deep understanding of both fundamentals and contemporary issues in electrical and computer engineering; and

• To engage graduate students with focused instruction and research opportunities for careers in the public/private sector.

For our faculty, we strive to

• provide support and resources for them to develop as dedicated scholars, devoted educators, and innovative researchers so that they may enjoy long fulfilling, and challenging careers; and

• support a collegial environment rich with autonomy, teamwork, discourse, and inquiry.

For our alumni, we strive to: • maintain productive ties to enhance their opportunities for lifelong learning and

leadership, as well as to benefit from their skills, knowledge, and experience.

For the University, we strive to: • work towards our goals of supporting a challenging and engaging community and to

enhance the quality of life for all. Our mission statement has a preamble followed by declarations of four interconnected commitments to the students, faculty, alumni and the University. Furthermore, the needs of industry are implied from the statements of commitments. Therefore, the major constituencies of our program are students, faculty, alumni, and industry.

2.4 Program Objectives:

The electrical engineering program has five program educational objectives (PEOs):

PEO1: Education of engineers for entry-level positions in industry and other engineering organizations, with emphasis on the design and implementation of engineering systems and devices.

PEO2: Preparation for graduate studies in electrical engineering, computer engineering, and related areas.

PEO3: A sufficiently broad exposure to other disciplines to allow subsequent education in other professions such as law, medicine, and management.

PEO4: Preparation for self-learning and future personal development in our rapidly advancing industrial society.

PEO5: Stimulation of better citizenship through ethical and humanistic studies.

27

2.5 Publication and Consistency with Mission

The PEOs have been published on the ECE Department’s webpage (www.ece.sunysb.edu) and in the Undergraduate Guides for the EE and CE programs. A link to the Department’s web page is also provided on the University’s Bulletin to inform students where our PEOs are listed. A handout containing a list of PEOs, along with the explanation of the program assessment process, is made available to students along with the course schedule materials at the beginning of the semester. .

When compared with the mission statement, the PEOs are consistent with the department’s mission. There are many attributes that appear in both items. Key examples are understanding of fundamental knowledge for practice and/or advanced study, broad education for employment or graduate education; preparation for careers in engineering and for lifelong learning; and an innovative program that is rigorous and challenging, open and supportive.

2.6 Procedures to Define and Periodically Evaluate PEOs

After the program’s last ABET visit in 1999, we began working on our self-improvement strategies in the spirit of ABET-2000. An ABET Executive Committee, chaired by the department’s chairman Prof. Serge Luryi and with Prof. Hang-Sheng Tuan, Associate Chair, Prof. Ridha Kamoua, the Undergraduate Program Director, Prof. Thomas Robertazzi and Prof. Wendy Tang as members, is responsible for planning the ABET activities. In the 1998-1999, 1999-2000 academic years, the committee met on an ad-hoc basis. Since the academic year 2000-2001, the committee meets regularly with frequency from twice per semester to at least monthly in the more recent years.

Under the leadership of the ABET Executive Committee, a process was established, based on the needs of the program’s constituencies, in which the objectives are determined and periodically evaluated. In devising the PEOs, a committee of senior faculty members first proposed a draft. The draft was debated and discussed during our faculty meetings and Industrial Advisory Board meeting. To ensure that inputs from our other constituencies are solicited, we ask our alumni, students, and employers whether they feel that the five PEOs are sufficient and whether they would like to add or subtract from the list in our various surveys and focus group discussions. We also established a process to evaluate the extent to which these PEOs are attained. This process involves phone interviews with our alumni, online alumni survey; administering an online employer survey, conducting online senior student survey, and online junior student survey; and conducting various focus group discussions. A detailed description of the results is presented in Section 2.8. The results of each year’s evaluation are reviewed by the ABET Executive Committee and a set of recommendation is forwarded to the Undergraduate Committee which discusses and presents its own recommendations to the entire faculty during our faculty meetings. Finally, a major review of our PEOs is planned every six years. Our next major review of PEOs is scheduled for the 2005-2006 academic year.

In the 1999-2000 academic year, a committee of senior faculty members, chaired by Distinguished Professor Armen Zemanian, first drafted the five PEOs listed above. These PEOs were presented, discussed, and approved by the ECE faculty during faculty meetings with the input by the Industrial Advisory Board. There were some concerns and discussions that our two programs (EE and CE) share an identical set of PEOs. To investigate this matter, we examined the PEOs of the EE and CE programs of nine universities nationwide. They are: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,

28

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Carnegie Melon, University of Texas, University of California at San Diego, North Carolina State University, Johns Hopkins University, University of California at Irvine, and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. A list of their PEOs is included in Appendix I-E. We found that the first six universities also have an identical set of PEOs between the two programs. Furthermore, the PEOs of these institutions are mostly synergistic with our PEOs. Since our faculty has opted for the synergistic union of both programs as described in the Introduction of Section A (Background Information) of this report, we chose to have an identical set of PEOs for both of our programs. Of course, we expect to revisit this issue at our next scheduled major review of our PEOs in the 2005-2006 academic year.

To solicit input from our constituents and to ensure that our PEOs meet the needs of our constituents, we include the following question in our alumni online survey; employer online survey; student survey; and student, alumni, and employer focus group discussions:

“Do you feel that the five PEOs are sufficient? Would you like to add or subtract from this list? If so, please specify.”

The responses consist of a mix of comments. While some feel that the list is sufficient, others disagree. However, there are certainly many comments on the wording of our PEOs. For example, in the IAB meeting in the Spring 2005 semester, members of the IAB feel that PEO 3 should be less specific about “law, medicine, and management”. The general comment was that the spirit of PEO3 is to provide a broad exposure to other disciplines. However, the current wording puts too much emphasis on the specific fields of law, medicine, and management. These comments will be considered in our next major review of PEOs scheduled for the 2005-2006 academic year. Periodic evaluation of PEOs is also obtained from our constituencies. More specifically,

Students: During our student focus group discussions, we asked our students for their comments on our PEOs and whether our programs have achieved these objectives. During the Exit Survey of our Senior Students, we also ask students to comment on and evaluate how well our program achieves its PEOs. The results of these surveys and focus group are presented in Section 2.8.

Faculty: Faculty is continuously involved through departmental faculty meetings, course assessment committees, and attendance at various focus group discussions. A more detailed description of the various focus groups is presented in Section 3, Program Outcomes.

Alumni: Input from alumni is sought through focus group discussions, online surveys and phone interviews with alumni. For example, during the fall 2004 semester, we conducted a phone interview and/or e-mail survey of our graduates of the 2000/2001 academic years. During the Spring 2005 semester, we conducted a focus group discussion and an online survey. In both the focus group discussion and the online survey, we asked our alumni to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5, how well our program has achieved its PEOs. More discussions on results from alumni are presented in Section 2.8 Evaluation of Achievement of Program Objectives.

Industry: Input is sought during our annual Industrial Advisory Board Meetings, and in our industry focus group discussions and online surveys. In our online survey, we ask our employers to rate, based on their interactions with our graduates and on a scale of 1 to 5, how well our program has achieved its PEOs.

29

2.7 Design of Curriculum to Achieve Program Educational Objectives

The curriculum of the electrical engineering program provides students with a broad range of engineering knowledge and skills as well as hands-on training and experience. The curriculum includes the Diversified Educational Curriculum (D.E.C.) required by the university, and the lower and upper-division core curricula that start in the freshmen and junior year, respectively. The core curriculum develops student’ skills in analysis and design of electrical and computer systems, provide laboratory practice, and hands-on experience, to encourage the development of communication and leadership skills, and to acquire knowledge to practice modern electrical engineering in today’s global marketplace, as well as to develop special interests in which students can excel. Specifically, the curriculum addresses the PEOs as follows:

• PEO1: Education of engineers for entry-level positions in industry and other engineering organizations, with emphasis on the design and implementation of engineering systems and devices.

The core program provides education and training that are fundamental to the discipline of electrical engineering. Courses with laboratory components utilize knowledge and skills in applications and fields that are practical for a practitioner of electrical engineering.

• PEO2: Preparation for graduate studies in electrical engineering, computer engineering, and related areas.

The core program provides the fundamentals for the electrical engineering discipline. These fundamentals are essential for pursuing graduate studies. Our technical electives provide in-depth coverage of areas of special interests. We envision that these technical electives will enhance the basic curriculum and provide the necessary depth needed for advanced studies. Furthermore, Stony Brook University as a whole (and the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering in particular) has a strong tradition to involve undergraduate students in research programs. For example, in the 2005 URECA (Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities) program, our department has several projects included in the program. The WISE (Women in Science and Engineering) program and the AMP (Alliance for Minority Participation) programs are both very successful programs run by the university to promote women and minority students in science and technology research.

• PEO3: A sufficiently broad exposure to other disciplines to allow subsequent education in other professions, such as law, medicine, and management.

The Diversified Education Curriculum (D.E.C.), divided into three categories of (i) University Skills, (ii) Disciplinary Diversity, and (iii) Expanding Perspectives and Cultural Awareness, provides a broad exposure to other disciplines. Through our assessments and feedback process, we have also identified the need to introduce guest speakers in our freshman classes to raise awareness and provide special counseling to students interested in other professions. Our capstone engineering design courses also have a lecture component in which speakers from various professions share their professional experience with students and provide career-related advice.

30

• PEO4: Preparation for self-learning and future personal development in our rapidly advancing industrial society.

Our entire engineering curriculum emphasis on applications and problem solving skills are intended to help students develop self-learning and life-long learning skills.

Furthermore, a required capstone one-year senior-design project (ESE 440/441), which is structured to place the student into a teamwork environment, brings together the different skills and knowledge acquired earlier. The work requires the student teams to design and, in most cases, to build and demonstrate a prototype of their system. A series of written and oral engineering reports relating to the design project must also be produced. The course includes a didactic component in which professional speakers discuss issues of engineering professionalism and ethics.

Communication skills are a key component of the program; technical writing is emphasized throughout the student's undergraduate experience, and oral presentations are included throughout and in particular during the senior year. Students are required to give oral presentations about their senior design projects.

• PEO5: Stimulation of better citizenship through ethical and humanistic studies.

The Expanding Perspectives and Cultural Awareness category of the D.E.C. requirement is to help students develop their sense of ethical responsibility and their understanding of the humanities, social sciences, and the relationship between technology and society. Indeed, the Department of Technology and Society at the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Stony Brook has many courses that discuss issues that relate to technology and society. Most of these courses can be used to satisfy D.E.C. requirements. Furthermore, some lectures in the capstone senior design project course are devoted to discussing engineering ethics. Students are also required to discuss ethical consideration and the impact of their project on society in their capstone engineering senior design project reports.

Table B2-1: A summary of how the EE curriculum meets the PEOs.

Curriculum PEO1 Core program; Courses with laboratory component. PEO2 Core program; Technical electives; Optional undergraduate research

opportunities (URECA, WISE, AMP, Sensor Consortium, etc) PEO3 Diversified Education Curriculum (D.E.C.); Guest speakers in ESE 124;

Guest Speakers in capstone engineering design course, ESE 440/441. PEO4 ESE 440/441; Curriculum’s emphasis on applications and problem-solving

skill. PEO5 D.E.C., ESE 440/441.

31

2.8 Evaluation of Achievement of Program Objectives

To evaluate how our graduates achieve our Program Educational Objectives several years after graduation, we have used the following evaluation strategies: phone interviews and online survey with our alumni; online surveys with our employers, exit online surveys with our senior students, and online surveys with our junior students. The following is a summary of these evaluations:

2.8.1 Qualitative Career Data from Alumni

In an effort to collect qualitative data from our alumni, we conducted phone interviews with our alumni during the fall 2004 semester, and an alumni focus group discussion that was devoted to the PEOs in the Spring 2005 semester.

In the fall 2004 semester, we conducted a phone interview with our 2000/2001 graduates. We designed a survey of 10 questions (a copy is attached in Appendix I-G). We used a list of 110 graduated students from those two years and their contact information was established. The majority of our faculty was divided into five groups of three members each. Each group made 22 phone calls to these graduates. However, most of our phone contact information on the record was parents’ phone numbers and, as expected, parents were reluctant to give updated phone numbers for their children. We have received a total of 15 responses (13.6%), with a few of the responses obtained via e-mails.

In the spring 2005 semester, we conducted a focus group discussion with our alumni. The entire discussion was devoted to issues of PEOs. A total of eleven graduates came for the group discussion. A detailed report of this discussion is included in Appendix I-D. During this focus group discussion, we asked our alumni to comment on the five PEOs. By and large, the group discussion indicated that, with the exception of PEO3, all PEOs were met. To further quantify the extent that we met our PEOs, we asked these alumni to fill the Alumni survey (Appendix I-G) of 10 questions.

The result of the alumni survey obtained through phone interviews and focus group discussion is summarized in Table B2-2. There are a total of 26 responses (15 from phone interviews and 11 from alumni focus group discussions). Specific survey answers (names and privacy information omitted) are available for review.

Table B2-2: A summary of qualitative survey of 26 alumni.

# Of Positive Responses

Percentage

PEO1 Holding/Has Held Engineering Positions 24 92% PEO2 Pursuing/Has Pursued Graduate Programs 20 77% PEO3 Other Professions 1 4% PEO4 Professional Development (license, conferences, etc) 16 62%

PEO5 Community Service, Voter registration 16 62%

32

With the understanding that the small number of responses does not allow for a statistically significant analysis, we felt that the surveys offer an accurate glimpse of the profile of our graduates. As expected, the majority of our graduates are pursuing careers in engineering. Of the two graduates that do not or did not have an engineering position, one claimed to be self-employed but gave no specific details of what kind of self-employment. The other has pursued an engineering internship and is currently attending graduate school in electrical engineering. Furthermore, a large majority is either currently pursuing or has pursued graduate studies in electrical and computer engineering. Also, as expected, we have a few graduates who have pursued other professional degrees (PEO3). In terms of PEO4, preparation of self-learning and future personal development, a decent majority has also pursued the professional engineer licensing and attended professional conferences. As for PEO5, awareness of ethical and societal responsibilities, more than 60% of the surveyed graduates have either performed some sort of community service and/or are aware of their responsibilities to vote as citizens.

2.8.2 Quantitative Measures from Alumni

In an effort to obtain more quantitative measures of the extent to which our PEOs are met, we also asked our alumni in the Spring 2005 focus group discussions to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5 (one being the least and five being the most), how well our program meets its five PEOs. We also set up an online survey for our alumni to rate our PEOs. The online survey was announced to our Industrial Advisory Board members who then helped us reach their employees that have graduated from our program. However, the combined number of responses is still rather small. A total of 23 responses were obtained and their results are summarized in Table B2-3.

Table B2-3: A summary of quantitative rating of 23 alumni.

1 (low) 2 3 4 5 (High) >=3 PEO1 0% 0% 9% 52% 39% 100% PEO2 0% 0% 19% 62% 19% 100% PEO3 10% 14% 38% 33% 5% 76% PEO4 0% 0% 43% 39% 17% 100% PEO5 14% 14% 48% 19% 5% 72%

2.8.3 Quantitative Measures from Employers

To obtain quantitative measures of the extent to which our PEOs are met, we set up an online survey for employers of our graduates to rate our PEOs. The survey asks supervisors of our graduates to rate, based on their interactions with our graduates on a scale of 1 to 5 (one being the least and five being the most), how well our program achieves its five PEOs. The announcement of the survey was e-mailed to members of our Industrial Advisory Board in the Spring 2005 semester. A total of five responses were obtained and their results are summarized in Table B2-4.

33

Table B2-4: A summary of quantitative rating of 5 employers.

1 (low) 2 3 4 5 (High) >=3 PEO1 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% PEO2 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% PEO3 0% 0% 25% 75% 0% 100% PEO4 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% PEO5 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100%

2.8.4 Discussions on Quantitative Measures from Alumni and Employers

Based on Tables B2-3 and B2-4, we feel that we have successfully met our PEO1, PEO2, and PEO4. As for PEO5, we are satisfied with the outcome. However, we feel that more discussion and or materials can be emphasized in engineering ethics. This will help further improve the achievement of PEO5.

Obviously, the weakest outcome is PEO3, a sufficiently broad exposure to other disciplines to allow subsequent education in other professions such as law, medicine, and management. In the establishment of PEO3, our goal is to provide a broad exposure to our students. Our program, obviously, is not designed to train lawyers, doctors, or businessmen. The fact that only one of our alumni contacted thus far has opted to pursue law, medicine, or management is not surprising to us. Of that particular individual, he has started his own company and gives us a good rating on PEO3. Nevertheless, we feel that our PEO assessment results have demonstrated a need for our program to strengthen PEO3. More discussions on how the result of our PEO evaluation is used to develop and improve the program outcomes is presented in Section 2.8.8. Finally, we also feel that our quantitative measures support our qualitative data in Section 2.8.1.

2.8.5 Quantitative Measures and Input from seniors

While we understand that the PEOs are meant to measure our graduates’ accomplishments a few years after graduation, we have been curious to find out how our graduating seniors perceive the extent to which our program meets its five PEOs. We posted an “anonymous” survey on Blackboard of our capstone engineering design class (ESE 441) in the Spring 2005 semester. In this survey, students were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5 (one being the least and five being the most), how well our program achieves its five PEOs. The survey is “anonymous” because the instructor can only tell if a particular student has completed the survey but there is no correlation between the answers and students’ identities. The policy is in place to ensure students are free to express their opinions. As a sixth question, students are also asked to comment on whether they feel the five PEOs are sufficient and whether they would like to add/subtract from the list. There were a total of 56 responses and their quantitative rating is summarized in Table B2-5.

34

Table B2-5: A summary of quantitative rating of 56 senior students.

1 (low) 2 3 4 5 (High) >=3 PEO1 18% 20% 34% 23% 5% 62% PEO2 11% 11% 41% 30% 7% 78% PEO3 43% 21% 23% 13% 0% 36% PEO4 21% 14% 29% 25% 9% 63% PEO5 21% 16% 36% 21% 4% 61%

2.8.6 Quantitative Measures and Inputs from juniors

A similar survey on Blackboard was also conducted for students in ESE 306, a required course at the junior level. Again, the survey was conducted anonymously to encourage students to express their opinions freely. There were 23 responses. The quantitative rating is summarized in Table B2-6.

Table B2-6: A summary of quantitative rating of 23 junior students.

1 (low) 2 3 4 5 (High) >=3 PEO1 4% 9% 48% 30% 9% 87% PEO2 4% 9% 13% 48% 26% 87% PEO3 13% 26% 35% 22% 4% 61% PEO4 0% 22% 44% 30% 4% 78% PEO5 22% 26% 39% 9% 4% 52%

2.8.7 Discussions on Quantitative Measures from Junior and Senior Students

Based on Tables B2-5 and B2-6, we are satisfied that, with the exception of PEO3, the majority of students believe that we have achieved our PEOs. However, we have certainly noted the relatively large number of low ratings, as compared with our data from alumni and employer. This observation is particularly true among our seniors. We attribute this phenomenon to the fact that a relatively large number of our seniors in this class are foreign students who entered the university in September 2001, just weeks before the September 11 attack of the World Trade Center. In her interaction with the class, the instructor of the class sensed these students are now experiencing a lot of difficulties in securing employment before graduation. We believe this sense of desperation is reflected in the survey results. Nevertheless, one point worth noting on these results is that PEO3 consistently scores lower than other PEOs. 2.8.8 How PEO evaluations are used to improve and develop program? Based on our evaluations of PEOs as described in the previous sections, we are satisfied with PEO1, PEO2, and PEO4. As for PEO5, we feel that more emphasis should be placed on discussions of engineering ethics. As a first step, the instructor of ESE 441, our capstone engineering design

35

course, has included two lectures on engineering ethics. Also students in the class are required to write about the ethical issues related to their projects. Regarding PEO3, we feel that more exposures to other professional disciplines early in their studies will help students prepare for a career in those disciplines. Starting in the spring 2004 semester, we have asked professional advisors from law, medicine, and business to make guest presentations in our freshmen class, ESE 124. Also, our capstone engineering design class, ESE 440/441 continues to expose students to other professions.

36

3. Program Outcomes and Assessment 3.1 Statement of Program Outcomes The program outcomes are what students are expected to know and be able to do when they graduate. The electrical engineering’s program outcomes are listed below. Specifically, we expect our graduates to attain: a. an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering; b. an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data; c. an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic

constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability;

d. an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams; e. an ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems; f. an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility; g. an ability to communicate effectively; h. the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global,

economic, environmental, and societal context; i. a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning; j. a knowledge of contemporary issues; and k. an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice. 3.2 Relationship to Program Educational Objectives To demonstrate how our educational objectives are achieved through the listed program outcomes, Table B3-1 illustrates the relationships between the five program educational objectives and the eleven program outcomes. These program outcomes have been assessed through various strategies. The primary strategy of assessment is based on course assessment reports of ALL core courses. The assessment report for each course is based on direct measures of student performance in a combination of graded homework, exams, projects, and/or laboratory reports. Course assessment reports of the Fall 2003, Spring 2004, and Fall 2004 semesters are included in Appendix I-H. Course assessment reports for the Spring 2005 semester is not ready at the time this report is prepared but will be available at the time of ABET visit. Course folders for courses offered in the Fall 2004 and Spring 2005 semesters will be available for review at the time of visit. More detailed description of these course assessment reports and the extent these outcomes are met are described in Section 3.4. The results of such assessments are, in turn, used to modify our program and thus better achieve our educational objectives.

37

Table B3-1: A summary of Program Educational Objectives and Program Outcomes.

Program Outcomes

PEO1

PEO2

PEO3

PEO4

PEO5

a. Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.

b. Ability to design and conduct experiments as well as analyze and interpret data.

c. Ability to design a system, component or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints …

d. Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.

e. Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems.

f. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

g. Ability to communicate effectively.

h. Broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions ...

i. Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning.

j. Knowledge of contemporary issues.

k. Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice.

38

3.3 Relationship of Courses to Program Outcomes To facilitate the feedback on the achievement of program outcomes, starting in the academic year 2001-2002, each course instructor prepares a Course Objective Form, which lists the percentage of various program outcomes covered by the course. This Course Objective Form is later adopted as part of the syllabus of the course. Course Syllabi for 2004-2005 are included in Appendix I-B. Each course syllabus and hence the list of program outcomes covered by the course is updated at the beginning of each semester. To ascertain that the curriculum prepares the student for the program outcomes to be achieved, we have prepared a table relating the courses to the outcomes. Table B3-2 shows a mapping of all ESE courses to program outcomes. Each column of an outcome indicates how many courses covered the specific outcomes. A similar mapping is shown in Table B3-3 for Diversified Education Curriculum (DEC) courses. To further analyze how our curriculum covers the various program outcomes, Tables B3-4, B3-5, B3-6 show the level of emphasis placed on a given program outcomes, in a given course, for our students specialized in Microelectronics, Telecommunications and the General tracks respectively. The level of emphasis is indicated by a double check mark for substantial coverage; a single check mark for minor coverage; and blank for no coverage. Thus, a glance at these tables indicates the distribution of program outcomes in terms of coverage level and breadth across the courses and hence across the curriculum.

39

Table B3-2: Mapping of ESE courses to program outcomes

Course No

Course Title (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)

ESE 123 Introduction to ECE ESE 124 Computer Techniques For Electronic Design ESE 211 Electronics Laboratory A ESE 218 Digital Systems Design ESE 231 Introduction To Semiconductor Devices ESE 271 Electrical Circuit Analysis I ESE 300 Writing in Electrical/Computer Engineering ESE 304 Applications of Operational Amplifiers ESE 305 Deterministic Signals and Systems ESE 306 Random Signals and Systems ESE 311 Analog Integrated Circuits ESE 314 Electronics Lab. B ESE 315 Control System Design ESE 319 Intro. to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves ESE 321 Electromagnetic Waves and Wireless

Communication

ESE 324 Electronics Laboratory C ESE 330 Integrated Electronics ESE 333 Real-Time Operating Systems ESE 337 ESE 337 Digital Signal Processing Theory ESE 340 Basic Communication Theory ESE 342 Digital Communications Systems ESE 344 Software Techniques for Engineers

40

Table B3-2 (Con’t): Mapping of ESE courses to program outcomes

Course No

Course Title (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)

ESE 345 Computer Architecture ESE 346 Computer Communications ESE 347 Digital Signal Processing: Implementation ESE 350 Electrical Power Systems ESE 352 Electromechanical Energy Converters ESE 355 VLSI System Design ESE 356 Digital System Specification and Modeling ESE 358 Computer Vision ESE 363 Fiber Optic Communications ESE 372 Electronics ESE 373 RF Electronics for Wireless Communications ESE 380 Embedded Microprocessor Systems Design I ESE 381 Embedded Microprocessor Systems Design II ESE 382 Digital Design Using VHDL and PLDs ESE 440 Engineering Design I ESE 441 Engineering Design II

Table B3-3: Mapping of DEC (Diversified Educational Curriculum) courses to program outcomes

DEC Category

Course Topic (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)

A English Composition (2 courses)

B Interpreting Texts in Humanities (1 course)

C Mathematical and Statistical reasoning (1 course)

E Natural Sciences (2 courses) F Social and Behavioral Sciences (1 course) G Humanities (1 course)

H Implications of Science and Technology (1 course)

I European Traditions (1 course)

J The World Beyond European Traditions (1 course)

42

Table B3-4: Program Outcomes for Microelectronics Specialization.

Semester CORE a b c d e f g h i j k Freshman ESE 123 ESE 124 Sophomore ESE 231 ESE 271 ESE 305 ESE 372 ESE 306 ESE 218 ESE 211 Junior ESE 314 ESE 319 ESE 337 ESE 324 ESE 300 Senior ESE 440 ESE 380 ESE 441 Advanced ESE 373 ESE 355 ESE 311 ESE 330 ESE 304

Total # courses 20 14 15 4 18 9 15 9 11 6 14

43

Table B3-5: Program Outcomes for Telecommunications Specialization.

Semester CORE a b c d e f g h i j k Freshman ESE 123 ESE 124 Sophomore ESE 231 ESE 271 ESE 305 ESE 372 ESE 306 ESE 218 ESE 211 Junior ESE 314 ESE 319 ESE 337 ESE 324 ESE 300 Senior ESE 440 ESE 380 ESE 441 Advanced ESE 340 ESE 347 ESE 342 ESE 363 ESE 346

Total # courses 20 16 16 4 18 9 15 10 12 6 14

44

Table B3-6: Program Outcomes for General EE. Semester CORE a b c d e f g h i j k Freshman ESE 123 ESE 124 Sophomore ESE 231 ESE 271 ESE 305 ESE 372 ESE 306 ESE 218 ESE 211 Junior ESE 314 ESE 319 ESE 337 ESE 324 ESE 300 Senior ESE 440 ESE 380 ESE 441 Electives ESE 311 ESE 315 ESE 352 ESE 346 ESE 304 ESE 358

Total # courses 21 17 16 7 18 11 15 13 14 9 17 3.4 Course-Based Program Outcome Assessment Process The primary strategy of assessment is based on course assessment reports of ALL core courses. The assessment report for each course is based on direct measures of student performance in a combination of graded homework, exams, projects, and/or laboratory reports. Course assessment reports of the Fall 2003, Spring 2004, and Fall 2004 semesters are included in Appendix I-H. Course assessment reports for the Spring 2005 semester are not ready at the time of this report is prepared and will be available at the time of visit. Course folders for courses offered in the Fall 2004 and Spring 2005 semesters will be available for review at the time of visit.

45

As shown in the Course Syllabi, each course has an established set of program outcomes, the achievement of which can be measured or demonstrated via selected pieces of student work (various course assignments). At the beginning of the semester, the program assessment process and the map of program outcomes and courses (Table B3-2) are reviewed at a faculty meeting, to keep the instructors’ perspective as to how their course fits into the overall program. At that time the course mini-committees are established and reminded of the need for a course assessment report by the end of the semester. Lively discussions generally follow the assessment presentation. Some faculty members remain skeptical with respect to the meaning or validity of measures of student achievement or express fears that “continuous improvement” is a path to grade inflation. Other faculty members want a richer, more complex set of measures to capture all variations and subtleties or to ensure scientific accuracy. However, as we proceed with the implementation of this measurement-based (rather than anecdotal) assessment process, these discussions become more focused and productive. As we are gaining more first-hand experience with each assessment, the process continues to be refined and standardized. We emphasize that the overall course grades are NOT used for program assessment, but rather we use selected assignment or parts of assignments, tailored to measure particular outcomes. In the following sections, we describe how we set up the various metric goals for the (a)-(k) program outcomes in Section 3.4.1, the charter of the mini-committees for course assessments in Section 3.4.2; and an outcome-by-outcome analysis of the extent that these outcomes are met in Section 3.4.3. A Conclusion and Summary of Primary Program Outcome Analysis is presented in Section 3.4.4. 3.4.1 Setting up metric goals. Our first step in program outcome assessment is setting up metric goals for each outcome that illustrate the level of quality of outcomes achievement we judge necessary to produce graduates that will, ultimately, achieve the Educational Objectives upon their graduation. To assure that the desired outcomes are applicable to all students, we focus on the required courses (core courses) of all students, regardless of tracks or specializations. Table B3-7 shows the substantial program outcomes of core courses during students’ four years of study. In setting up the metric goals for these outcomes, we set lower standards for courses in the beginning of the program and expect a higher standard for courses in the senior year. For example, during the freshmen year, the core courses (ESE 123, ESE 124) only cover program outcomes (a), (e) and (k) in a substantial way. We set the metric goal for these outcomes during the first year to only 50%. We expect that, as students progress through the curriculum, a higher standard is necessary to ensure that all graduates will have the a-k outcomes by the time of graduation.

46

Table B3-7: Metric Goals for Program Outcomes during the 4 years of Studies.

(Numbers in Percentage)

Course a b C d e f g h i j k

Freshman ESE 123 - - - - - - - - - ESE 124 - - - - - - - - goal 50 50 50

Sophomore ESE 211 - - - - - - - - ESE 218 - - - - - - - - ESE 231 - - - - - - - - ESE 271 - - - - - - - - - - ESE 305 - - - - - - - - ESE 306 - - - - - - - - - ESE 372 - - - - - - - - goal 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Junior ESE 300 - - - - - - - - ESE 314 - - - - - - - ESE 319 - - - ESE 324 - - - - - - - - ESE 337 - - - - - - - - goal 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Senior ESE 380 - - - - - - ESE 440/441

goal 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

47

3.4.2 Primary Program Outcome Assessment – Process and Mini-Committees To provide continuous assessment and feedback of the core courses in the department, we formed twenty-six mini-committees corresponding to the required courses for the two programs in ECE (the one-year capstone senior design project courses ESE 440/441 share the same committee). Table B3-8 is a list of the committees and their members. The coordinators of each committee are listed in bold. To ensure that the ABEC EC2000 process involves our entire faculty, the committees were formed to involve all of our full-time faculty members. Table B3-9 shows a list of our full-time faculty and their affiliated committees. Indeed, the majority of our full-time faculty members are involved with two to three courses. The only exception is our Chairman who is overseeing the entire ABET EC2000 process and is heading the ABET Executive Committee. The charter of these mini-committees is to assess student performance in achieving major program outcomes of the course, based on student performance in various assignments such as homework, exams, projects, and/or laboratory reports. Each of these mini-committees meets to identify specific questions on various course assignments that pertain to the outcomes the course was designed to provide. The committee, as a whole, also determines passing grades for these questions and then proceeds to determine the percentage of students passed the outcomes based on the grades of the questions. Discussions follow and suggested changes for future improvements are noted if necessary. The result of these program outcome assessments is then summarized in an assessment report. A course assessment report is filed at the end of each semester for all core courses. These course assessment reports for the Fall 2003, Spring 2004, and Fall 2004 semester are included in Appendix I-H. The assessment reports for courses in the Spring 2005 semester are not ready at the time this report is prepared and will be available for review at the time of visit. The ABET Executive Committee meet with each committee coordinator to review each report. A list of proposed changes are then drafted and sent to the Undergraduate Committee who discussed these changes and make recommendations of action items to improve the curriculum. These recommendations are then discussed during faculty meetings. Any proposed curriculum changes are then submitted to CTPC for final approval. Section 3.5 is a summary of the proposed curriculum changes due to our assessment efforts. In Appendix I-J, we include the assessment report for the last academic year, Fall 2003-Spring 2004. A summary of the most recent semesters’ (Spring 2004, Fall 2004) course assessment results is presented in Table B3-10. The numbers of each entry is the percentage of students passing the specific outcomes based on students’ performance on various course assignments such as homework, exams, projects, and/or laboratory reports, etc as indicated in the course assessment report. Comparisons of these two semesters’ result with that in Appendix I-J are presented in Section 3.4.5. In the next section, we discuss, for each outcome, the extent it is attained by our students.

48

Table B3-8: Course Assessment Committees for all required courses (Coordinators are in bold)

Required Courses

Outcome Assessment Committee

(course coordinators are in bold face)

Major Outcomes

ESE123 Parekh, Yang, Murray (a), (e)

ESE124 Tuan, Yang, Subbarao (a), (e), (k) ESE211 Belenky, Donetski, Gorfinkel (a), (b), (k) ESE218 Hong, Donetski, Doboli (b), (c), (e) ESE231 Kamoua, Belenky (a), (g), (i) ESE271 Zemanian, Donetski, Belenky (a) ESE300 Marge, Zemanian (e), (f), (g) ESE304 Gouzman, Kamoua (a), (b), (k) ESE305 Chen, Dhadwal, Robertazzi (a), (e), (k) ESE306 Djuric, Bugallo, Robertazzi (a), (e) ESE314 Sussman-Fort, Gouzman, Tuan (a), (e), (f) ESE319 Tuan, Dhadwal, Parekh (a), (k), (e) ESE324 Sussman-Fort, Gouzman, Luryi (b), (e), ESE333 Yang, Subbarao, Doboli (a), (b), (e), (k) ESE337 Chen, Murray, Zemanian (a), (b), (k) ESE340 Bugallo, Djuric (a), (b), (k) ESE342 Bugallo, Djuric (a), (b), (c) ESE345 Dorojevets, Hong (a), (c), (k) ESE346 Robertazzi, Tang (a), (c), (k) ESE347 Murray, Chen (c), (e), (k) ESE355 Doboli, Hong (b), (c), ESE372 Kamoua, Gorfinkel (a), (c), (k) ESE373 Sussman-Fort, Parekh (a), (c), (e) ESE380 Short, Dorojevets, Subbarao (a), (b) ,(c), (e), (k) ESE382 Short, Dorojevets (a), (b), (c), (e), (k)

ESE440/441 Tang, faculty (a)-(k)

49

Table B3-9: Faculty involvement in the Course Assessment process (Coordinators are in bold)

Faculty Courses to assess Belenky ESE211, ESE231, ESE271

Bugallo ESE340, ESE342, ESE306 Chen ESE305, ESE337, ESE347

Dhadwal ESE363, ESE319, ESE305 Doboli ESE355, ESE218, ESE333

Donetski ESE218, ESE211, ESE271 Dorojevets ESE345, ESE380, ESE382

Djuric ESE306, ESE340, ESE342 Gorfinkel ESE363, ESE372, ESE211 Gouzman ESE304, ESE314, ESE324

Hong ESE218, ESE355, ESE345 Kamoua ESE372, ESE231, ESE304 Marge ESE300 Murray ESE347, ESE337, ESE123 Parekh ESE123, ESE373, ESE 319

Robertazzi ESE346, ESE306, ESE305 Short ESE380, ESE382

Subbarao ESE124, ESE333, ESE380 Sussman-Fort ESE314, ESE324, ESE373

Tang ESE440, ESE441, ESE346 Tuan ESE319, ESE124, ESE314 Yang ESE333, ESE123, ESE124

Zemanian ESE271, ESE337, ESE300

50

Table B3-10: A Summary of the Most Recent Course Assessment Results. (Numbers are percentage of students achieved the outcome; Numbers in bold correspond to core courses).

Course a b c d e f g h i j k

ESE 123 66 - - - 66 - - - - - - ESE 124 58 - - - 50 - - - - - 84 ESE 211 62 44 - - - - - - - - 62 ESE 218 - 55 62 - 62 - - - - - - ESE 231 75 - - - - - 80 - 80 - - ESE 271 68 - - - - - - - - - - ESE 300 - - - - 75 72 72 - - - - ESE 304 83 87 100 77 83 95 - 87 - - 93 ESE 305 68 - - - 62 - - - - - 70 ESE 306 68 - - - 64 - - - - - - ESE 314 77 80 83 - 88 100 98 - - - - ESE 319 73 - 75 75 62 - 76 84 84 - 84 ESE 324 78 - - - 49 45 - - - - - ESE 330 69 - 63 - - - - - - - 79 ESE 333 82 82 - - 82 - 69 - - 69 82 ESE 337 70 70 - - - - - - - - 70 ESE 340 75 50 - - - - - - - - 60 ESE 342 55 71 71 - - - - - - - - ESE 345 58 - 79 - 58 - 79 - - - 79 ESE 346 79 - 75 - - - - - - - 70 ESE 347 - - 97 - 70 - - - - - 88 ESE 355 18 70 87 - 90 100 90 - - - 90 ESE 372 88 - 59 - - - - - - - 59 ESE 373 18 - 82 - 41 - - - - - - ESE 380 80 97 97 - 80 - - - - - 97 ESE 382 66 82 82 - 66 - - - - - 82

ESE 440/441 100 100 100 85 100 73 88 88 94 88 100

51

Table B3-11: Comparison of Goal and Obtained Program Outcomes for required courses in Electrical Engineering

(Combined results of Table B3-7 and Table B3-10).

Course a b c d e f g h i j k

Freshmen ESE 123 66 - - - 66 - - - - - - ESE 124 58 - - - 50 - - - - - 84 Avg 62 58 84 Goal 50 50 50

Sophomore ESE 211 62 44 - - - - - - - - 62 ESE 218 - 55 62 - 62 - - - - - - ESE 231 75 - - - - - 80 - 80 - - ESE 271 68 - - - - - - - - - - ESE 305 68 - - - 62 - - - - - 70 ESE 306 68 - - - 64 - - - - - - ESE 372 69 - 69 - - - - - - - 69 Avg 68 50 66 63 80 80 67 Goal 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Junior ESE 300 - - - - 75 72 72 - - - - ESE 314 77 80 83 - 88 - 98 - - - - ESE 319 73 - 75 75 62 - 76 84 84 - 84 ESE 324 - 78 - - 48 - - - - - - ESE 337 70 70 - - - - - - - - 70 Avg 73 76 79 75 68 72 82 84 84 77 Goal 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

Senior ESE 380 64 66 66 - 64 - - - - - 66 ESE 440/441 100 100 100 85 100 73 88 88 94 88 100

Avg 82 83 83 85 82 73 88 88 94 88 83 Goal 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

52

3.4.3 Primary Assessment to demonstrate extent to which program outcomes are met. In this section, we provide an outcome by outcome analysis on the extent that these outcomes are met based on our primary assessment on students’ performance in core courses. We chose to focus on the core courses because all students in our program are required to take these courses and therefore they are guaranteed the opportunity to be exposed to these outcomes. Table B3-11 provides a summary and a comparison of metric goals and attained program outcomes for core course throughout the curriculum. It is a combination of Table B3-7 and Table B3-10. The “Avg” row is the averaged of the program outcomes for courses in a year. A quick check of Table B3-11 identified several concerns in Program Outcomes (b), (c), (e) during the sophomore year; Program outcome (e) during the junior year, and Program Outcome (f) in the senior year. These outcomes are highlighted in red in the table. This issue is addressed in the following outcome-by-outcome analysis.

a. Ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering.

This outcome is very basic and fundamental to our program. As indicated in Table B3-11, students in our program are exposed to this desired program outcomes from freshmen to their senior year. As expected, the exposure is small in the freshmen year and students received most exposures for this outcome during their sophomore and junior year. By their senior year, we expect most students have attained the outcome. Our level of expectation is also gradually increasing as students mature in the program. By comparing the averaged program outcomes attained in various course and the metric goal for each year, we are satisfied that this outcome is met.

b. Ability to design and conduct experiments as well as analyze and interpret data.

This outcome pertains to experiments and analysis of data and is very basic and fundamental.

We are alarmed that during the sophomore year, students did NOT meet our metric goal

for this outcome. This result is, in part, due to the recent increased complexity of the course assignments (as a result of suggested changes in previous semester) as indicated in the course assessment report of ESE 211 and ESE 218. A series of activity for ESE 211 is being implemented in the current Spring 2005 semester with the aim of improving this outcome.

We are pleased to note that the averaged assessed outcomes from student performance

gradually increased from 76% during the junior year and ultimately to 83% during the senior year; meeting all our metric goals for these years.

We should also note that Table B3-11 shows only the required core courses. Students, in

almost all cases, have exposure to other courses providing outcome (b) in their elective and technical elective courses such as ESE 304, ESE 333, ESE 342, ESE 355, and ESE 382. All of these courses meet our metric goal for this outcome, as indicated in Table B3-10.

53

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

This outcome pertains to system/component or process design, an essential attribute to

the engineering curriculum. We are pleased to note that the averaged assessed outcomes from student performance

gradually increased from 66% during the sophomore year, to 79% during the junior year and ultimately to 83% during the senior year; meeting our metric goals for these years.

We are especially pleased that all our students meet this outcome in the capstone

engineering design courses (ESE 440/441). The ESE 440/441 is a one-year project-oriented course. In the Fall semester (ESE 440), students typically work on the design aspect of the project while the Spring semester (ESE 441) focus on the implementation and testing stage of the project. From our previous assessment effort, we found that students tend to lack documentation of the design aspect of the project. Students were issued a revised set of guidelines in writing their project report in Fall 2004. In these guidelines, a section is devoted to discuss design constraints and various designs that have been considered for the project. In the Fall 2004 course assessments of ESE 440, all projects were found to address the design aspect satisfactory, yielding a 100% achievement in Program Outcome (c).

We should also note that Table B3-11 shows only the required core courses. Students, in

almost all cases, have exposure to other courses providing outcome (c) in their elective and technical elective courses such as ESE 304, ESE 342, ESE 355, and ESE 382. All of these courses meet our metric goal for this outcome, as indicated in Table B3-10.

d. Ability to function on multidisciplinary teams.

Because of the rapidly progressing technology field, we deem the ability to function on multidisciplinary teams very important for our Program Educational Objectives PEO3-5. However, we also concede that during the first two years, our core curriculum focuses on the basic and fundamental engineering concepts.

Program outcome (d) is assessed in the junior year via ESE 319 and the capstone

engineering design course in the senior year. According to Table B3-11, both metric goals are accomplished in these two years.

In our capstone engineering design course (ESE 440/441) most students, with the

exception of few, perform the projects in teams. As part of a revised set of guidelines for reports of ESE 440/441, students are asked to address their multidisciplinary team experience in the project. Assessment of this section for ESE440/441 project reports in the Fall 2004 semesters yields an outcome achievement of about 85%, satisfying the metric goal. However, we would still like to increase this performance by encouraging students to pursue projects that are multidisciplinary in nature.

54

However, we also wish to reiterate that the above analysis is based on the minimum core requirement, students are, in fact, given ample opportunity to develop this outcome. Examples of multidisciplinary team experience can be obtained via internships with industry, undergraduate projects in various funded research opportunities, the newly initiated Sensor Consortium project, etc.

We are especially proud about the Sensor Consortium project initiated in the Fall 2004

semester. Under the leadership of Professors Serge Luryi and Wendy Tang, the Sensor Consortium project’s goal is to introduce entrepreneurial skills to undergraduate engineering curriculum. The program is funded by the National Science Foundation. The Sensor Consortium is a multidisciplinary and multi-institution program. For the first time, four of Long Island’s public and private higher education institutions joined forces to incorporate entrepreneurial skills into their respective undergraduate curriculum. Our education partners include Hofstra University, Farmingdale State University, and Suffolk Community College. This is an interesting partnership as it consists of a mix of public and private universities; four-year and two-year colleges; as well as research oriented and predominantly undergraduate institutions. A major component of the Sensor Consortium project is the Technology Entrepreneurial-Team (E-Team) competition in which four E-Teams compete in developing a prototype sponsored by an industrial partner of the Sensor Consortium. To emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of the program, each team has ONE student from EACH of the education partners. Each undergraduate team is led by a Stony Brook graduate student and supervised by a Stony Brook faculty. We believe students who participate in the Sensor Consortium will have a very unique and valuable multidisciplinary team experience. We are eagerly awaiting the outcome assessments of the project at the end of Spring 2005 semester.

e. Ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems.

Similar to outcome (a), this outcome is also very basic and fundamental to our program. As indicated in Table B3-11, students in our program are exposed to this desired program outcomes from freshmen to their senior year. As expected, the exposure is small in the freshmen year and students receive most exposures for this outcome during their sophomore and junior year.

We are disappointed that we did NOT meet our metric goal of 70% during the junior

year’s core courses for this outcome. The mini-committee of ESE 324 indeed noted the low achievement for outcome (e). This indicates that many students have a tendency to build the lab project somewhat mechanically, without paying adequate attention to theoretical details. This tendency must surely be rectified. The mini-committee of ESE 324 has recommended a series of activities to improve this outcome, adding emphasis to the importance of a complete approach to lab experiments, from the basic theory to the practical implementation. These activities will be added in subsequent offerings of the course and the results re-measured under magnifying glass.

We are satisfied of the assessment outcome for courses in the other years.

55

f. Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.

As part of our program educational objectives, we would like our graduates to be able to aspire to other professions (PEO3); to be prepared for self-learning (PEO4); and to be better citizens (PEO5). Outcome (f) is indeed a necessary skill for these PEOS. However, since our curriculum entails a large number of courses and credit hours, additional courses on ethics may induce undue pressure to the tight curriculum. Therefore, we have chosen to expose students to ethical issues within the curriculum. More specifically, during the junior year, ESE 300 students are trained in ethical issues involved in technical communication. They have reading assignments from the course textbook in plagiarism and lecture instruction in the legal ramifications of stealing someone else's work and passing it off as their own. They are also taught how to properly cite the work of others by using bibliographies and references. We are satisfied with the assessed outcome as it meets our metric goal for junior year. For the capstone design courses (ESE 440/441) students are asked to write a section about the ethical issues related to their design projects. In the Fall 2004 semester, these sections were graded by project advisors and, based on these graded sections, we conclude that only 73% students meet this outcome, 7% below our metric goal. Realizing students’ weakness in obtaining this outcome, we have dedicated two lectures in ESE 441 of the Spring 2005 semester to engineering ethics. Students are divided into ten groups to discuss and compete on ten min-cases of ethical questions from Lockheed Martin Corporation that was posted at http://onlineethics.org/corp/graymatters/martin.html, which is the webpage of the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science at Case Western Reserve University. Our hope is that within the setting of a fun-oriented competition, students can garner understanding of ethical issues through discussions. These students are, again, expected to write about the ethical issues of their design project in this Spring 2005 semester. We are eagerly awaiting the assessment data to see if the added lectures on ethics improve the extent this outcome is achieved.

g. Ability to communicate effectively.

As will be discussed in Section 3.5, our program has conducted many focus groups and surveys to get inputs from our constituencies. During our many employer focus groups, the importance for our graduates to possess efficient communication skills cannot be over emphasized. From Table B3-11, we are pleased with the obtained outcomes, 80% for the sophomore year, 82% for the junior year and 88% for the senior year. However, from our many focus group discussions with faculty, alumni, and students, there is an overwhelming demand to further strength the technical communication aspect of our curriculum. In response to this demand, our faculty has opted to increase the currently required 1 credit hour of ESE 300 (Writing for Electrical and Computer Engineering) course in the junior year to be a 3-credit-hour course. This change will be implemented in the Spring 2006 semester.

56

h. Broad education necessary to understand impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.

This outcome is important to our PEO3 (preparing our students to pursue other professions) and PEO5 (preparing our students to be better citizens). They were assessed through classroom discussions in ESE 319, a junior level class; and in ESE 440/441 when the design project’s impact on society is discussed. They were attained at 84% and 88% respectively and we are satisfied with this outcome. Other exposure to this outcome can be found in ESE 304, a required course for the Microelectronic track and otherwise an elective for other students. From Table B3-10, the outcome (h) is attained at a satisfactory rate of 87% for ESE 304.

i. Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, lifelong learning.

Indeed, the recognition and an ability of lifelong learning is an essential attribute for a successful career for our graduates. We are very pleased with the progressively increasing assessment results of 80% during the sophomore year, 84% during the junior year and 94% during the senior year.

j. Knowledge of contemporary issues.

Indeed, the knowledge of contemporary issues is important for a broad education and the preparation of our students to pursue other career options (PEO3) and, of course, to be a better citizen (PEO5). For our core engineering curriculum, we only have ESE 440/441, the capstone design course providing substantial coverage for this outcome. Throughout both the Fall and Spring semesters, we have invited guests from industry to talk about various engineering professions and current events. The following are some examples of the guest lectures during the Fall 2004 and Spring 2005 semesters: Mr. Frederick Seeba, chief engineer of Burton, Behrendt, and Smith P.C., a professional architectural firm on Long Island, has presented a talk on “Building Engineering and Technology Design” on October 5, 2004. Mr. Kevin Tan, Network Engineer of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) of New York City, has presented a lecture on the state of art of networking on October 12, 2004. Ms. Gloria Glowacki from the New York State’s Small Business Development Center has presented a talk on how to start a small business on November 16, 2004.

57

Mr. Jesse Taub, the former chief scientist of EDO Corp, formerly AIL Systems, presented an overview of Microwave Engineering: its past history, current status and future applications on April 5, 2005. Other speakers from Symbol Technologies, Inc, Microsoft Corporation, BAE Systems, Inc, EDO Corp, etc have all came to speak to students about their professions and their industries. To assess students’ knowledge of contemporary issues, we require students in ESE 440/441 to address their project’s impact on society and discuss any project related contemporary issues in their written reports for the Fall and Spring semesters. As indicated in Table B3-11, the assessments of these reports yield an 88% of achievement of this outcome in the Fall 2004. We are satisfied with this result. We are less satisfied with our measurement strategy for this outcome, which relies quantitatively on the assessment of one course only. We plan to strengthen the assessment of this outcome by asking core courses such as ESE 124 and ESE 306 with some minor coverage of this outcome to provide assessment of outcome (j) by having a small set of assignments geared towards the assessment of this outcome. Furthermore, we also noted that outcome j is extensively covered in our Diversified Education Curriculum (DEC) -- as part of the University’s general education requirement. As indicated in Table B3-3, this outcome is covered extensively in the DEC categories C, E, F, G, H, I, J. Assessment of the DEC courses is included in Part II and is not repeated here.

k. Ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for

engineering practice.

This outcome is, indeed, very important for our PEO1 and PEO2 and is fundamental to our program. As it is clear in Table B3-11, students received many exposures to this outcome throughout their four years of study. We are pleased with the result that this outcome is met at 84% during the freshman year, 64% during the sophomore year, 77% during the junior year and 83% during the senior year.

3.4.4 Conclusion and Summary of Primary Program Outcome Analysis Based on the above outcome-by-outcome analysis, we are confident that our graduates meet the program outcomes (a)-(k). However, as a result of the analysis, we have also identified several areas of our program that needs to be strengthened. More specifically, for outcome (b), ESE 211 has a set of planned activities for the current Spring 2005 and Fall 2005 semesters. They are: • Include clear instructions on how students can address items (b) and (k) in their weekly lab

reports. • Increase the number of quizzes which address the experimental issues and the ability to use

modern technical tools for conducting experiments.

58

• Require that students include in their lab reports analysis of the experimental data and description of the new tools used in every lab.

Also, ESE 218 has the following planned activities: For outcome (b)

• Gradual increase of the report weight in the total lab grade in accordance with the lab complexity to encourage work on the most challenging experiments

• Require active involvement of both members of the group in every experiment. One member of the group will be responsible for the prelab while his/her partner will take care of the report

• Incorporation of HDL in the assignments based on the software included with the textbook • Development of new lab experiments

For outcome (e), The mini-committee of ESE 324 noted that achievement of this outcome is low. The instructor noted that many students have a tendency to build the lab project somewhat mechanically, without paying adequate attention to theoretical details. This tendency must surely be rectified. The mini-committee of ESE 324 has recommended a series of activities to improve this outcome, adding emphasis to the importance of a complete approach to lab experiments, from the basic theory to the practical implementation will be added in subsequent offerings. For outcome (f), we have increased engineering ethics coverage in ESE 441 in the Spring 2005 semester and are eagerly awaiting assessment of those data. For outcome (g), we plan to strengthen the technical communication aspect of our curriculum by increasing the credit hours of ESE 300 (Writing in Electrical and Computer Engineering) from one to three in the Spring 2006 semester. More details of this change, including the proposed new syllabus, are covered in Section 3.7.3. For outcome (j), we plan to strengthen the assessment of this outcome by asking a few core courses (ESE 124 and ESE 306) that have minor coverage of this outcome to provide assessment of it by incorporating a small set of problems that are geared towards assessment of outcome j. 3.4.5 Comparison of Program Outcome Analysis with the previous academic year In this section, we provide a comparison of program outcome analysis of courses in the most recent two semesters (Spring 2004, Fall 2004) with that of the previous academic year of Fall 2003-Spring 2004. Ideally, we would like to compare two academic years’ results. However, at the time this report is written, course assessment for Spring 2005 is not available. At the time of the visit, we plan to provide the assessment report for the academic year Fall 2004-Spring 2005 for review. A comparison between the two academic years Fall 2003-Spring 2004 and Fall 2004-Spring 2005 will also be available at that time. Figure B-1 is a comparison of program outcomes between the previous academic year (Fall 2003-Spring 2004) with the two most recent semesters (Spring 2004, Fall 2004). The top table is the exact copy of Table VII-2 in Appendix I-J and the bottom table is the exact copy of Table B3-11. The two tables are duplicated on the same page for comparison purposes.

59

Figure B-1: Comparison of POs between F03-S04 (top table) and S04-F04 (bottom table) semesters.

Course a b c d e f g h I j k Freshmen ESE 123 66 - - - 66 - - - - - -

ESE 124 58 - - - 50 - - - - - 52 (Goal=50) Avg 62 58 52

Sophomore ESE 211 78 44 - - - - - - - - 65 ESE 218 - 87 83 - 83 - - - - - - ESE 231 70 - - - - - - - - - - ESE 271 68 - - - - - - - - - - ESE 305 70 - - - 62 - - - - - 65 ESE 306 68 - - - 64 - - - - - - ESE 372 88 - 59 - - - - - - - 59

(Goal = 60) Avg 74 66 71 70 63 Junior ESE 300 - - - - 75 72 72 - - - -

ESE 314 - 85 - - 95 - - - - - - ESE 319 62 - - - 84 - - - - - 57 ESE 324 - 78 - - 49 - - - - - - ESE 337 70 70 - - - - - - - - 70

(Goal = 70) Avg 66 78 76 72 72 64 Senior ESE 380 80 97 97 - 80 - - - - - 97

ESE 440/441 - - 50 62 - 53 75 57 81 57 - (Goal = 80) Avg 80 97 74 62 80 53 75 57 81 57 97

Course a b c d e f g h i j k Freshmen ESE 123 66 - - - 66 - - - - - -

ESE 124 58 - - - 50 - - - - - 84 (Goal=50) Avg 62 58 84

Sophomore ESE 211 62 44 - - - - - - - - 62 ESE 218 - 55 62 - 62 - - - - - - ESE 231 75 - - - - - 80 - 80 - - ESE 271 68 - - - - - - - - - - ESE 305 68 - - - 62 - - - - - 70 ESE 306 68 - - - 64 - - - - - - ESE 372 69 - 69 - - - - - - - 69

(Goal = 60) Avg 68 50 66 63 80 80 67 Junior ESE 300 - - - - 75 72 72 - - - -

ESE 314 77 80 83 - 88 - 98 - - - - ESE 319 73 - 75 75 62 - 76 84 84 - 84 ESE 324 - 78 - - 48 - - - - - - ESE 337 70 70 - - - - - - - - 70

(Goal = 70) Avg 73 76 79 75 68 72 82 84 84 77 Senior ESE 380 64 66 66 - 64 - - - - - 66

ESE 440/441 100 100 100 85 100 73 88 88 94 88 100 (Goal = 80) Avg 82 97 83 85 82 73 88 88 94 88 83

60

As indicated in Appendix I-J, our last academic year’s course assessments have yielded the recommendation of providing report guidelines for students in the capstone design course (ESE 440/441) and the inclusion of assessments of outcomes (a, b, c, e) in the ESE 440/441. By comparing the top and bottom tables of Figure B-1, it is clear that these actions have yielded very positive impact on all program outcomes in the senior year. For outcome (c), last year’s assessment report recommends that ESE 314 and ESE 319 include assessment of outcome (c) in the next assessment cycle. The bottom table indicates that this problem has indeed been corrected. Furthermore, more assessments for outcomes (d, g, h, i) have been added for the sophomore and/or junior years. However, we also concede that our quest to improve our program has also yielded some negative results in outcome (b) in the sophomore year and outcome (e) in the junior year. In both of these cases, the more recent outcomes are worse than the previous academic year. We attributed the decline of these outcomes to, in part, an increased complexity of the course assignments. A series of activities for ESE 211 and 218 are now being implemented in the current Spring 2005 semester to improve this outcome. ESE 324 is also considering different options to improve the course. 3.5 Other Supporting Assessment Techniques – Focus Groups and Surveys Besides the above primary assessment through course work, we are very keen on getting feedback from our constituencies. In recent years this has largely taken two forms: focus groups and surveys. Table B3-12 and Table B3-13 provides a summary of the various focus groups and surveys with different constituencies for the past three academic years: 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005. A report is also compiled each year that documents feedback faculty received in regards to each course (from students, industrial contacts and the technical literature) and changes that were made as a result to the course. The feedback received as part of these ongoing assessment activities has proven useful and resulted in a number of curriculum changes. The various reports are included in the Appendix. A summary of the curriculum changes as a result of these assessments are included in Section 3.7. It should be noted that curriculum evolution is a continual iterative process. The course changes made were implemented after much thought and feedback from students, industry and research. Faculty become aware of needed curriculum changes based on the primary course-based assessment as described in Section 3.4 and from talking to each other, faculty from other universities, students, and engineers and managers in industry and in reading the industrial and research literature.

61

Table B3-12: A Summary of Various Assessments with Constituencies.

Constituency Assessment Tool Time of Assessments

Alumni Alumni focus group April 22, 2004, April 2005

Students Student Focus Group Nov, 2002, Mar 2003, Nov 2003 Oct 2004, March 2005

Internship Survey Sept 2002, Sept 2003, Sept 2004

Junior Survey April 2003, April 2004, April 2005

Senior Survey April 2003, April 2004, April 2005

Course Feedback End of every semester

Course Assessment End of every semester

Faculty Faculty Focus Group March 2004

Course Feedback End of every semester

Industry Industry Focus Group October 2003

Industrial Advisory Board April 2003, April 2005

3.5.1 Focus Groups An important part of the program’s assessment activities are 90 minute discussions between a small number of faculty and half a dozen other participants who may be (as a group) students, alumni or industrial representatives. The standard plan during the 2002-2004 academic years is to hold four focus groups with different constituencies each year. Faculty representatives almost always include the department’s chair, associate chair, undergraduate program director, ABET assessment coordinators and several alternating general faculty members. A list of questions is used to guide the discussion. A report is produced after each meeting summarizing the deliberations. This report is reviewed by the ABET Executive Committee which makes its suggestions to the Undergraduate committee who, in turn, present their recommendations to all faculty during faculty meetings. This format has been successful in identifying issues of concern to the program and its constituencies. Particularly over several focus groups, such as the student focus groups, common themes have been reinforced that may not have been noticed without this explicit mechanism.

62

Table B3-13: A Chronological Summary of Various Assessments

Year Assessment Tool Time of Assessments

2002-2003 Internship survey September, 2002

Student Focus Group November 20, 2002

Student Focus Group March 2003

Junior Survey April 2003

Senior exit survey April 2003

Industrial Advisory Board meeting April 2003

Student Course Feedback End of semesters

Faculty Course Feedback End of semesters

2003-2004 Internship Survey September 2003

Industry Focus Group October 2003

Student Focus Group November 2003

Faculty Focus Group March 2004

Junior Survey April 2004

Senior Survey April 2004

Student Course Feedback End of semesters

Faculty Course Feedback End of semesters

Course Assessment End of semesters

2004-2005 Internship Survey September 2004

Student Focus Group October 2004, March 2005

Industrial Advisory Board meeting April 2005

Alumni Focus Group April 2005

Junior Survey April 2005

Senior Survey April 2005

Student Course Feedback End of semesters

Faculty Course Feedback End of semesters

Course Assessment End of semesters

63

3.5.2 Surveys A number of surveys (see appendix I-G) have been implemented on a regular basis to gauge wider student sentiment regarding the curriculum and its effectiveness. The Internship Survey is given to seniors in September who have interned at engineering companies over the summer. The Sophomore/Junior Survey is taken in the spring. Finally, the Senior Exit Survey is taken prior to graduation. These surveys all have open-ended questions intended to solicit new issues that the faculty may not be aware of. The Internship Survey asks which courses were most useful to students during their internships. A report summarizing the results of each survey is distributed to faculty. 3.5.3 Student Evaluation of Instructors and Courses The use of student evaluations of instructors and courses dates back approximately 30 years. Initially the Department used its own evaluation form, but a university-wide form replaced it about 20 years ago. The university-wide one page form is distributed in all university courses during the last month of each semester. Students complete the forms anonymously. The form contains three questions requiring written replies and ten multiple-choice questions. To prevent tampering with the results of the evaluation, the instructor is required to assign a student to return the completed forms to the Department. The university scans the forms and returns a statistical summary of the multiple choice questions to instructors and the Department. The original forms are sent to program and copies are sent to the instructors. How are the evaluation results used? Faculty finds the student evaluations very helpful in documenting methodically the student perception of their courses. The written comments give faculty feedback on what the students perceive an instructor does well, what could be done better and what is particularly good and bad about the course. The answers to the multiple-choice questions provide additional quantitative feedback on a variety of issues such as instructor preparedness, instructor clarity, and performance evaluation fairness. They also provide information for ways of improving the contents and presentation of the course material from students’ perspectives. As all our undergraduates fill out the forms in every undergraduate course offered by the program, the large number of responses to the questionnaire represents a significant source for assessment of the courses. The Department places the statistical summaries and representative evaluations in the tenure and promotion files of faculty being considered for positions of associate and full professor. They are then available for inspection by senior faculty, the chair, the dean, the College of Engineering and Applied Science Personnel Policy Committee and higher Stony Brook administrators. As the student instructor and course evaluation form is used in all university courses (i.e., also mathematics, physics, chemistry and humanities courses), the evaluations help assure the overall quality of the Stony Brook education.

64

3.6 Quantitative Analysis to Demonstrate All Graduates Meet Program Outcomes In the above analysis, we have described a process we used to assess the extent to which our program meets its program outcome goals based on students’ performance in course work. We believe the result of our analysis demonstrates, with great likelihood, that our graduates meet the program outcomes. To further ensure that all of our graduates meet program outcomes a-k, we also performed a course grade analysis of all of our graduates. Using Tables B3-4, B3-5, B3-6 and the course grades of all students, we computed the averaged grades of all courses having a significant contribution to each of the program outcomes a-k for each of our graduates. Table B3-14 is the result of this analysis for all of our graduates in the Spring 2005 semester. To protect students’ privacy, only the last 4 digits of their student ID numbers are displayed. The numbers under each of the a-k outcomes indicate the number of courses used to compute the averaged courses grades for that outcome. For example, for outcome (a), twelve to fourteen courses are used, depending on the specific track of study that the student followed. More specifically, for a student in the general track, according to Table B3-6, the following fourteen courses have a significant contribution to outcome (a): ESE 123, ESE 124, ESE 231, ESE 271, ESE 305, ESE 372, ESE 306, ESE 211, ESE 314, ESE 319, ESE 337, ESE 440, ESE 380, and ESE 441. The course grades for these courses, for students following the general track, are then used to compute the averaged course grades for outcome (a). (In computing the numerical averaged course grades, we follow the university’s grade point computation formula, an A grade corresponds to 4.0; a B grade for 3.0, a C grade for 2.0; and a D grade for 1.0, etc). The third row from the last row of the table indicates the minimum averaged course grades for all students for each of the program outcomes a-k. It is very clear from this table that this minimum is still well above a C grade, which corresponds to a 2.0. With this analysis, we are confident that all of our graduates attained the required program outcomes a-k. It is also interesting to note that one of our graduates (ID number 9758) attained a 4.0 in all of our program outcomes a-k. Indeed, that student is the valedictorian of the College.

65

Table B3-14: Course Grade Analysis of all Graduates in Spring 2005 Student

ID a

(12-14) b

(5-6) c

(5-6) d

(3) e

(9-11) f

(3) g

(4) h

(3) i

(4) j

(2) k

(7-9) 6686 3.81 3.83 3.83 3.89 3.83 4.00 3.84 3.89 3.84 4.00 3.74

3666 3.15 3.17 3.00 3.34 3.04 3.45 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.78 3.21

6505 3.10 3.22 3.22 3.33 3.26 3.67 3.17 3.33 3.17 3.89 2.88

7224 3.50 3.39 3.33 3.56 3.38 3.45 3.59 3.56 3.59 3.56 3.33

5030 3.41 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.37 3.67 3.59 3.45 3.59 3.56 3.41

5143 2.67 3.00 2.83 3.22 2.64 3.33 3.00 3.22 3.00 4.00 2.63

8338 3.29 3.28 3.22 3.33 3.43 3.89 3.17 3.33 3.17 3.89 3.11

7288 2.93 3.67 3.33 3.00 2.77 3.78 3.17 3.00 3.17 4.00 3.04

0992 3.76 3.78 3.72 3.67 3.63 3.78 3.67 3.67 3.67 4.00 3.81

9348 3.44 3.78 3.56 3.67 3.33 4.00 3.58 3.67 3.58 3.78 3.63

5594 3.10 3.33 3.17 3.33 3.03 3.67 3.17 3.33 3.17 3.67 3.15

7987 2.95 3.33 3.33 3.33 2.93 3.67 3.42 3.33 3.42 4.00 2.89

0763 3.00 3.05 3.00 3.00 2.83 2.89 2.83 3.00 2.83 3.55 3.07

2979 2.81 3.28 3.11 3.44 2.83 3.67 3.25 3.44 3.25 3.78 3.04

1335 3.28 3.14 3.00 2.67 3.08 2.84 2.89 2.67 2.89 3.17 3.29

9758 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

8565 2.86 3.33 3.39 3.44 2.80 3.33 3.33 3.44 3.33 4.00 3.00

5432 3.19 3.39 3.17 3.56 3.23 3.67 3.42 3.56 3.42 3.67 3.11

2860 3.33 3.06 3.06 3.11 3.18 3.11 3.34 3.11 3.34 3.34 3.11

6260 3.52 3.78 3.56 3.44 3.42 3.78 3.58 3.44 3.58 4.00 3.48

0434 2.54 2.87 2.67 3.17 2.57 3.34 3.00 3.17 3.00 3.67 2.42

6183 3.20 3.33 3.17 3.56 3.26 3.78 3.34 3.56 3.34 4.00 3.14

9184 2.90 3.33 3.06 3.33 2.94 3.78 3.17 3.33 3.17 4.00 2.93

9564 3.62 3.89 3.50 3.33 3.67 4.00 3.42 3.33 3.42 4.00 3.48

7723 2.83 2.87 2.87 2.56 3.11 2.67 2.67 2.56 2.67 3.11 2.81

8954 2.83 3.40 2.87 3.00 2.78 3.67 2.83 3.00 2.83 3.56 2.90

4732 3.17 3.33 2.87 2.78 3.22 3.44 2.92 2.78 2.92 3.33 3.05

1326 3.18 3.53 3.27 3.44 3.33 3.67 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.78 3.19

2063 3.14 3.80 3.40 3.44 3.22 3.78 3.08 3.44 3.08 3.89 3.33

min 2.54 2.87 2.67 2.56 2.57 2.67 2.67 2.56 2.67 3.11 2.42

max 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

average 3.19 3.40 3.24 3.32 3.18 3.58 3.28 3.32 3.28 3.76 3.18

66

3.7 Curriculum Changes to Meet Program Outcomes The ABET Executive committee meets to discuss the results of the various surveys and assessments and propose changes to the curriculum based on this feedback. A summary of changes that were implemented as a result of the committee recommendations is presented below. A number of reports are issued so that everyone in the EE program is fully informed; i.e., i) a yearly report by the Associate Chair, ii) a report on major Electrical Engineering undergraduate degree changes by the Undergraduate Program Director, and iii) a record by departmental faculty of curriculum changes. It should be noted that curriculum evolution is a continual iterative process. The course changes made were implemented after much thought and feedback from students, industry and research into the pedagogy of peer Electrical Engineering programs. Faculty become aware of needed curriculum changes based on the primary course-based assessment in Section 3.4, in talking to each other, faculty from other universities, students, and engineers and managers in industry and in reading the industrial and research literature. The following is a record of changes and feedback sources. 3.7.1 Changes in 2001-2002 Academic Year.

In the 2001-2002 academic year, a major reorganization of the Electrical Engineering curriculum was undertaken in order to update the curriculum so it is consistent with current technology and includes tracks or specializations based on the strengths of the department. In this revision the following changes were implemented:

• Seven “focus areas” in the old curriculum were reduced to three tracks (Microelectronics, Telecommunications and a General track).

• The following courses were made mandatory for Electrical Engineering students:

o AMS 210 or MAT 211 Linear Algebra (required by ABET) o ESE 231 Introduction to Semiconductor Devices (new course) o ESE 337 Digital Signal Processing Theory o ESE 380 Embedded Microprocessor System Design I

• The requirements of ESG 302/332/333, PHY 251 or ESG 281 and MEC 259 were eliminated.

• The list of ESE and technical electives was updated.

• Identical criteria are adopted for admission into both the Computer and the Electrical Engineering programs (previously, the two programs used different criteria). It is based on a minimum of 3.0 averaged G.P.A. in required mathematics, physics and engineering courses. In certain circumstances, if a student has a G.P.A. between 2.8 and 3.0, there is an option for the student of submitting a petition that is considered by the undergraduate committee.

• Incorporation of more career planning material in ESE 123 (the freshman introductory course).

67

The course requirements for the restructured electrical engineering major are divided into six categories:

o Mathematics and Science o Engineering Basics o Core Courses o Track Courses o Design o University D.E.C. Requirement (7 courses/21 credits)

3.7.2 Changes in 2002-2003 Academic Year The following changes were implemented:

• Change offering of ESE 124 (Computer Techniques for Electronic Design) from Spring only to Fall and Spring to accommodate the increasing enrollment and to provide students with more flexibility on when to take the course.

• Course title and description of ESE321 have been changed: Old Title: Electromagnetic Waves and Fiber Optics New Title: Electromagnetic Waves and Wireless Communication Old Description: Propagation of electromagnetic waves in free space and dielectrics; wave propagation in anisotropic media and crystals; guided electromagnetic waves and surface waves; microwave waveguides, thin film planar optical waveguides, and optical fibers; introduction to the fundamentals of optical fiber communication components and systems. New Description: Following topics are covered in this course; the wireless radio signal environment, electromagnetic wave propagation in free space and other media, effects of reflection, scattering, diffraction, and multi-path interference on the characteristics and quality of the received signal; cellular wireless network planning, efficient use and reuse of assigned radio frequency spectrum, effects of transmitting and receiving antenna design, introduction of basic wireless communication techniques to achieve reliable communication.

• In order to prepare students better for writing reports for their senior design project, ESE 300 (Technical writing) was added as a prerequisite to ESE 440 (Engineering Design I).

• Approved a new course: Principles of Wireless Communications Course Description: Introduction to key aspects of wireless communications and networking: technology, architecture, types of wireless networks, design approaches, applications and standards. Fundamentals of analog and digital data transmission. Basics on antennas and propagation; signal encoding techniques; spread spectrum; coding; and error control. Analog, TDMA, CDMA, and 3G cellular; cordless systems; Wireless Local Loop; Mobile IP; and WAP, wireless LANs.

3.7.3 Changes in 2003-2004 Academic Year The ABET Executive Committee met on Monday, November 25, 2003 to discuss the feedback obtained from two ABET focus groups held in the fall of 2003. The two focus groups were:

1. Industry Focus Group, 10/27/2003 2. Student Focus Group, 11/12/2003

68

Based on the feedback from these two groups, the following recommendations and actions were made:

1. FPGA and VHDL: Explore the use of VHDL and FPGAs in more courses such as ESE218. Starting Fall 04, FPGAs are being covered in ESE 218.

2. Communication skills: The instructor for ESE300 was asked to look into adding an oral

component to ESE300. He indicated that it was a good idea. However, it would be more appropriate to introduce a 1-credit course in the fall of the junior year, which will give more time for lectures and student presentations. There was also a proposal to introduce a 1-credit seminar course taught in the junior year and move some of the presentation in ESE440 to this seminar course. To minimize the increase in the total number of credits required for the major, the following options was recommended by the Undergraduate Committee and was later discussed in a faculty meeting:

• Introduce a 1-credit seminar course taught in the Fall of the junior year. The seminar

will consist of invited speakers from industry and the university. Topics to be covered include industry experience, technology trends, research fields, and ethics.

• Keep ESE 300, technical writing, which is offered in the spring of the junior year • Modify ESE440, Engineering Design I, so that the lecture component will cover oral

communication skills, student presentations related to their senior design project, and possibly proposal writing. The course is to be coordinated by two instructors. The current instructor of ESE 300 is to teach oral communications skills and grading oral presentations by students. The second instructor is responsible for the project component, a couple of lectures at the beginning of the semester, as well as the final assignment of the grade for ESE440. The grade for ESE440 could be based on 25% weight for the oral communication component and 75% for the project as assigned by the individual advisors.

The above recommendation was later discussed in a faculty meeting, the final decision is to add the oral component to the technical writing course ESE 300 and increase the contact hours from one to three. This will be elaborated further in the section about 2004-2005 changes.

3. Coordinate between the instructors of ESE372 to make sure that the emphasis in the course

is more on circuits rather than physics of devices. Physics of semiconductor devices is now covered in a separate course ESE231, which is required for Electrical Engineering students and normally taken prior to ESE372.

4. Hands-on projects throughout the curriculum. Two of our faculty members are working on a NSF funded project to incorporate research projects into undergraduate courses. Initially, several courses were selected to try this approach.

5. Career Guidance for ESE 123 Students. A faculty member has volunteered to speak to ESE 123 students towards the end of the semester to expose them to the different areas in electrical and computer engineering.

69

3.7.4 Changes in 2004-2005 Academic Year This section lists partial changes resulting from various surveys and assessments results. A complete list of changes will be available at the time of visit.

1. The faculty approved a new course syllabus for ESE 300 (Technical Communication for Electrical and Computer Engineers) during a faculty meeting held in spring 05. The main changes include increasing the contact hours from 1 to 3 hours and adding an oral component. Once approved by the CEAS curriculum committee, this change will become effective starting spring 2006. The topics to be covered in the modified course are:

Week 1. Administrative (syllabus review, review of course textbook). Overview and

introduction of technical writing. Differences between technical writing and other forms of writing. Components of technical writing. Ethical considerations. In-class writing exercises and review.

Week 2. Technical Style and Mechanics. Homework No. 1 Week 3. Report writing and technical definitions. In-class writing exercises and

review. Week 4. Instructions and manuals. Resumes and cover letters. Exam No.1 Week 5. Abstracts and summaries. Proper methods of documentation. Analysis of

published engineering articles. Homework No. 2. Lab No. 1 due Week 6. Proposal writing. In-class writing exercises and review. Week 7. Visuals: graphics, formatting, electronic publishing, internet. Midterm exam Week 8. Oral presentation techniques and Powerpoints. Homework No. 3 Week 9. Team/group writing. In-class proposal writing techniques and exercises and

review. Lab No. 2 due Week 10. Workgroups assigned for Proposal writing teams. Exam No. 2 Week 11. Review of initial proposals. Team writing assignments Week 12. Team writing assignments: Oral presentations authoring based on mock

proposal selection. Lab No. 3 due Week 13. Final oral presentations (part 1: Groups 1 - 4…10 students in each group) Week 14. Final oral presentations (part 2: Groups 5 - 8)

2. The department approved a new course in the software area, ESE 224 (Computer

Techniques for Electronic Design II), to be taught by a new faculty hired in 2005. The course will be targeted to electrical engineering students and will bridge a gap between the introductory course in C programming, ESE 124, and the more advanced software engineering courses such as ESE 344. The new course description is:

This course is an introduction of C++ programming language for problem solving in electrical and computer engineering. Topics covered include: C++ structures, classes, abstract data types and code reuse. Basic Object-oriented programming concepts as well as fundamental topics of discrete mathematics and algorithms are introduced to solve problems in many areas in electrical and computer engineering.

ESE 224 weekly topics:

70

Week 1. An overview of C++ and object-oriented programming concepts Week 2. Introduction to Unix operating system. Week 3. Structures Week 4. Classes and objects Week 5. Classes and objects Week 6. Inheritance Week 7. Templates Week 8. Input and output Week 9. Topics in discrete math Week 10. Topics in discrete math Week 11. Algorithm design and problem solving in electronic systems, and Week 12. Digital logic minimization, and Week 13. Critical path calculation using graph algorithms.

71

4. Professional Component In the following, we describe the electrical engineering curriculum and how it prepares students for engineering practice. The BE degree in electrical engineering requires 128 credit hours. Figure B4-1. shows the curriculum for each of the three specializations (microelectronics, telecommunications, general). The electrical engineering topics are structured into three parts:

1) common curriculum, 2) required courses, and 3) electives.

Figures B4.2, B4.3, and B4.4 show curriculum maps for each of the specializations. The maps indicate in which year courses are normally taken and the required prerequisites or corequisites for each course. Double-ended arrows indicate that the corresponding courses are corequisites.

72

Figure B4-1 Electrical Engineering Curriculum

Freshman

MAT 131 Calculus I PHY 131 Physics I WRT 102 English Comp. ESE 123 Intro. to ECE.

MAT 132 Calculus IIPHY 132 Physics IICHE 198 Chem. for Eng. CHE 199 Chem. Lab ESE 124 Comp.Tech.

Sophomore

AMS 361 Calculus IVESE 231 Semi. DevicesESE 271 Elec. CircuitsESE 305 Det. Sig. Sys.AMS 210 Lin. Algebra

AMS 261 Calculus IIIESE 372 ElectronicsESE 306 Rand. Sig. Sys.ESE 218 Dig. Sys. ESE 211 Elect. Lab. A

Telecommunications Microelectronics General Junior

Senior

ESE 314 Elect. Lab B. ESE 319 E&M Fields ESE 337 Dig. Sig. Proc. ESE 340 Comm. Theory D.E.C D.E.C.

ESE 347 Dig. Sig. Proc.ESE 324 Elect. Lab. CESE 300 Writing in EEESE 342 Dig. Com. Sys .ESE ElectiveD.E.C.

ESE 314 Elect. Lab B.ESE 319 E&M Fields ESE 337 Dig. Sig. Proc.ESE 373 RF ElectronicsD.E.CD.E.C.

ESE 355 VLSI Design ESE 324 Elect. Lab. C ESE 300 Writing in EE ESE 311 Analog IC technical elective D.E.C.

ESE 314 Elect. Lab B.ESE 319 E&M Fields ESE 337 Dig. Sig. Proc.ESE ElectiveD.E.CD.E.C.

ESE ElectiveESE 324 Elect. Lab. CESE 300 Writing in EEESE ElectiveD.E.C.D.E.C.

ESE 440 Eng. Des. I technical Elective ESE 380 Emb. Sys. Des.D.E.C. D.E.C.

ESE 440 Eng. Des. IESE ElectiveESE 380 Emb. Sys. Des.ESE 330 Integrated D.E.C.

ESE 440 Eng. Des. IESE ElectiveESE 380 Emb. Sys. Des.Technical ElectiveD.E.C.

ESE 441 Eng. Des. IIESE 363 Fiber Opt. ESE 346 Comp. Comm. ESE ElectiveD.E.C.

ESE 441 Eng. Des. II ESE 304 App. OPamps ESE Elective D.E.C.D.E.C.

ESE 441 Eng. Des. IIESE Elective ESE Elective Technical ElectiveD.E.C.

73

Figure B4-2. Electrical Engineering Curriculum Map (Microelectronics)So

phom

ore

Juni

orSe

nior

Fres

hman AMS 151

AMS 161 PHY 132/134

PHY 131/133

ESE271

ESE211ESE372AMS210

AMS361

ESE123

ESE124

ESE218

ESE314

ESE305

ESE306

ESE337

ESE380ESE304 ESE440

ESE441 Elective

Elective

MicroelectronicsElectives

Core EngineeringMath &Science

CHE199 CHE198

AMS261

ESE231

ESE319 ESE324

ESE300Elective

ESE330

OR

ESE373ESE355

ESE311

Senior Design Project

74

Figure B4-3. Electrical Engineering Curriculum Map (Telecommunications)So

phom

ore

Juni

orSe

nior

Fres

hman AMS 151

AMS 161 PHY 132/134

PHY 131/133

ESE271

ESE211ESE372AMS210

AMS361

ESE123

ESE124

ESE218

ESE314

ESE305

ESE306

ESE337

ESE380ESE363 ESE440

ESE441Elective

Elective

TelecommunicationsElectives

Core EngineeringMath &Science

CHE199 CHE198

AMS261

ESE231

ESE319 ESE324

ESE300

Elective

OR

Senior Design Project

ESE340

ESE342 ESE347

ESE346

75

Electrical Engineering Curriculum Map (General)So

phom

ore

Juni

orSe

nior

Fres

hman AMS 151

AMS 161 PHY 132/134

PHY 131/133

ESE271

ESE211ESE372AMS210

AMS361

ESE123

ESE124

ESE218

ESE314

ESE305

ESE306

ESE337

ESE380ESE440

ESE441 Elective

Elective

Electives

Required Core EngineeringMath &Science

CHE199 CHE198

AMS261

ESE231

ESE319 ESE324

ESE300Elective

OR

Senior Design Project

Elective

Elective

ElectiveElective

Elective

OR

76

4.1 Required Courses 4.1.1 Mathematics and Basic Sciences (30 to 32 credit hours)

AMS 151 or MAT 131 Calculus I (3-4 hrs) AMS 161 or MAT 132 Calculus II (3-4 hrs) Students may take the two-semester calculus sequence AMS 151/161 or MAT 131/132 or the three-semester sequence MAT 125/126/127 based on their score in the mathematics placement exam. AMS 261 Calculus III (4 hrs) AMS 361 Calculus IV (4 hrs) AMS 210 or MAT211 Linear Algebra (3 hrs) PHY 131/133 Physics I (4 hrs) PHY 132/134 Physics II (4 hrs) Students may take either the two-semester physics sequence PHY 131/132 or the three-semester sequence PHY 125/126/127 based on their score in the physics placement exam CHE 198 Chemistry for Engineers (4 hrs) CHE 199 Chemistry Laboratory (1 hrs)

4.1.2. Probability, Random Processes, and Statistics (3 hours) All students in the Electrical Engineering program are required to take ESE 306, Random Signals and Systems (3 hours). In this course they learn the basic concepts of probability theory: sample spaces, event spaces, and probability measure. Subsequently they are introduced to the notion of random variables, and work on discrete and continuous, as well as single and multivariable random variables. Finally, the students are acquainted with random processes and learn about some important cases including the Poisson process, Brownian motion, and Gaussian process. In the same course, students also get the very basics of statistics and statistical inference. Throughout the course, for most of the time, students study and practice the subject on applications in engineering. Many examples are provided from communication theory, quality control, reliability engineering, radar, and queuing theory. The theory of probability, random processes, and statistics is applied in several courses offered in the program. They include ESE 340 (Basic Communication Theory), ESE 342 (Digital Communication Systems), ESE 346 (Computer Communications), ESE 357 (Digital Image Processing), and ESE 358 (Computer Vision), and ESE 362 (Optoelectronic Devices and Optical Imaging Techniques). There, the theory is used to study the performance of a communication system and network, development of optoelectronic devices, detection of signals, design of systems with improved reliability, or recognition and interpretation of images.”

4.1.3. Electrical Engineering Core Courses (42 credit hours)

ESE 123 Introduction to Electrical and Computer Engineering (4 hrs) ESE 124 Computer Techniques for Electronic Design (3 hrs)

77

ESE 231 Introduction to Semiconductor Devices (3 hrs) ESE 271 Electrical Circuit Analysis I (4 hrs) ESE 305 Deterministic Signals and Systems (3 hrs) ESE 218 Digital System Design (4 hrs) ESE 211 Electronics Laboratory A (2 hrs) ESE 372 Electronics (4 hrs) ESE 314 Electronics Laboratory B (3 hrs) ESE 319 Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves (3 hrs) ESE 324 Electronics Laboratory C (2 hrs) ESE 337 Digital Signal Processing Theory (3 hrs) ESE 380 Embedded Microprocessor Systems Design (4 hrs)

The core courses are required for all students in the electrical engineering program. Every student is required to take three laboratory courses ESE 211 (Electronics Laboratory A), ESE 314 (Electronics Laboratory B), and ESE 324 (Electronics Laboratory C); three lecture-laboratory courses, ESE 123 (Introduction to Electronic Design), ESE 218 (Digital Systems Design), and ESE 380 (Embedded Microprocessor Design I), and eight lecture courses: ESE 124 (Computer Techniques for Electronic Design), ESE 231 (Introduction to Semiconductor Devices), ESE 271 (Electrical Circuit Analysis I), ESE 305 (Deterministic Signals and Systems), ESE 306 (Random Signals and Systems), ESE 337 (Digital Signal Processing Theory), ESE 372 (Electronics), and ESE 319 (Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves).

4.1.4. Courses Required by Specialization

Students interested in microelectronics or telecommunications need to take five upper-level ESE courses that focus more in depth on one of these two subdisciplines.

4.1.5. Microelectronics Specialization (16 credit hours)

ESE 304 Applications of Operational Amplifiers (3 hrs) ESE 311 Analog Integrated Circuits (3 hrs) ESE 330 Integrated Electronics (3 hrs) ESE 355 VLSI System Design (4 hrs) ESE 373 RF Electronics (3 hrs)

4.1.6. Telecommunications Specialization (16 credit hours)

ESE 340 Basic Communication Theory (3 hrs) ESE 342 Digital Communications Systems (3 hrs) ESE 346 Computer Communications (3 hrs) ESE 347 Digital Signal Processing (4 hrs) ESE 363 Fiber Optic Communications (3 hrs)

4.2. ESE Technical Electives In addition to the required courses, students need to take additional ESE courses from a list approved by the faculty or by permission of the Undergraduate Program Director. The number of

78

electives depends on the specialization chosen by the student: two for microelectronics and telecommunications and 6 for the general track. Appendices A, B, and C in the undergraduate guide (http://www.ece.sunysb.edu) lists all the ESE courses that are appropriate as ESE electives for the three specializations. 4.3. Other Electives In addition to the ESE electives, students are required to take technical electives from other engineering and science disciplines. Appendix D in the undergraduate guide lists courses from other departments in the college that could be used as technical electives. This includes courses from Mechanical Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Computer Science, Engineering Science, Physics, and Technology and Society. The number of electives is two for the general track and one for the microelectronics and telecommunications tracks. 4.4. Capstone Engineering Design Project Students carry out a major design project during their senior year. This consists of a two-semester course sequence: ESE 440 Engineering Design I and ESE 441 Engineering Design II. At the beginning of each fall semester a list of projects from all the faculty is posted on the course website. Students select a project based on their interests, meeting the prerequisites for that project, and the approval of the faculty advisor. Students in the microelectronics or telecommunications tracks are encouraged to select projects appropriate for those specializations. Normally students work in a group of up to four students. During the fall semester students complete the design phase and in the spring semester, they perform the implementation and testing of their project. A report is required at the end of each semester as well as an oral presentation at the end of the spring semester. In addition, a number of students are selected to present their project during a campus wide event that highlights undergraduate student research under the URECA program. 4.5. General Education Requirements The general education requirements of the university, described in the Diversified Education Bulletin, summarized in Table B4-1, must be satisfied by all students. It is general education that provides breadth of knowledge within a balanced liberal arts framework and complements the depth of knowledge gained through study of the major. Stony Brook general education requirements are organized within the Diversified Education Curriculum (DEC) implemented in fall 1991. The D.E.C. is an articulated program of courses in three categories: university skills, disciplinary diversity, and expanding perspectives and cultural awareness. The D.E.C. is designed to help students place the more specialized parts of their undergraduate study – their major and pre-professional training – in a cultural and historical context. Additionally, each category is subdivided and assigned a letter from A through J. Courses satisfying each letter category may be taken at any time, except for D.E.C. A, which must be taken in the freshman year. No D.E.C. course may be used to satisfy two categories simultaneously; however, it may also be used to satisfy the major requirements. For example, PHY 131 satisfies D.E.C. category E as well as the major requirement. In selecting courses for the I and J categories, students must select one with a humanities designator and the other with a social sciences designator (this ensures necessary breadth). Students should use Table B4-1 in planning their D.E.C. course assignments.

79

Table B4-1: Diversified Education Curriculum (D.E.C.)

LEVEL COURSES (number)

GRADE (minimum)

EXAMPLE

University Skills: A – English Composition B – Interpreting Texts in the Humanities C – Mathematical and Statistical Reasoning

1 1 1

C D C

WRT 102 RLS 101 AMS 151

Disciplinary Diversity: E – Natural Sciences F – Social and Behavioral Sciences G – Humanities

2 1 1

C

D D

PHY 131,133 PHY 132,134

ECO 108 PHI 105

Expanding Perspectives and Cultural Awareness: H – Implications of Science and Technology I – European Traditions J - The World Beyond European Traditions

1 1 1

D D D

CSE 301 see above see above

The three D.E.C. groups, University Skills, Disciplinary Diversity, and Expanding Perspectives and Cultural Awareness, are detailed here as required for students in CEAS programs.

1) University Skills (satisfied by taking appropriate courses in D.E.C. categories A-D): D.E.C. Category A English Composition (two courses): helps students communicate effectively in written English. Satisfied by passing WRT101 and WRT102 or WRT103. (ABET 3(d, g, h, k)) D.E.C. Category B Interpreting Texts in the Humanities (one course): helps students develop skills of interpretation and analysis that will enable them to examine subject matter critically. (ABET 3(b2, e, h, j)) D.E.C. Category C Mathematical and Statistical Reasoning (one course): helps students understand and use quantitative skills and ideas critical to higher education. (ABET 3(a, b2, e, h, k))

2) Disciplinary Diversity (satisfied by taking appropriate courses in D.E.C. categories E-G): D.E.C. Category E Natural Sciences (two courses): Expands student knowledge of objects and processes observable in nature. (ABET 3(a, b1, b2, c, e, h, i, j, k)) D.E.C Category F Social and Behavioral Sciences (one course): Focuses on individual and group behavior within society. (ABET 3(b2, c, d, g, h, i, j))

80

D.E.C. Category G Humanities (one course): Examine disciplines and methods that express the way people view the human condition. (ABET 3(d, g, h, i, j))

3) Expanding Perspectives and Cultural Awareness (satisfied by taking appropriate courses in D.E.C. categories H-J).

D.E.C. Category H Implications of Science and Technology (one course): helps students understand the social and global implications of science and technology. (ABET 3(a, b2, d, e, f, g, h, i, j)) D.E.C. Category I European Traditions (one course): Considers Western cultural tradition through specialized study of a European nation. (ABET 3(d, g, h, i, j)) D.E.C. Category J The World Beyond European Traditions (one course): helps students understand a nation, region or culture that is significantly different from the United States and Europe in a least one respect. (ABET 3(d, g, h, i, j))

The assessment of the general education curriculum is described in detail in section B.2.3.1 of part II of the ABET self-study report. 4.6. Oral and Written Communications Every freshman must take the writing placement examination, which is used to assess the writing skills of the student and place him/her in an appropriate track to satisfy one of the writing requirements. Depending on his/her score on the writing placement examination, each freshman meets the writing requirement in one of three ways. These are: a) completion of WRT 101 (Introductory Writing Workshop) and WRT 102 (Intermediate Writing Workshop A) with a grade of C or higher in each course, or, b) completion of WRT 102 with a grade of C or higher, or c) completion of WRT 103 (Intermediate Writing Workshop B) with a grade of C or higher. It is anticipated that about 70% of the students will meet the requirements via (b) or (c). Every student is required to take his/her first writing course during the first two semesters at the university. Transfer students without credit for a course judged equivalent to WRT 102 or WRT 103 and passed with a grade of C or higher, take the writing placement examination, and register for the appropriate course(s). Additional writing and oral communication requirements In addition to the basic writing requirement, each ECE student is required to pass ESE 300 (Technical Writing in Electrical and Computer Engineering), in order to satisfy the upper-division writing requirement for graduation. This course is given once a year in the spring semester. Students in ESE 300 are required to write extensive technical reports on several of the experiments performed in ESE 314, ESE 218, ESE 380, or ESE 382. These reports are graded and returned to the students for appropriate feedback. Lectures on improving writing skills are included in the course. In-class examinations are also required for ESE 300. Students who fail to meet the standards of the

81

course are given more time to improve their writing skills and are required to retake and pass the ESE 300 course in a subsequent year. All electrical engineering majors are required to have passed a two-course sequence, ESE 440 and ESE 441, (Engineering Design I and II), in which students have to submit comprehensive technical reports and give oral presentations of their design projects. Some of the students give oral presentations to the entire ESE 441 class, while the remaining students give their presentations to a smaller audience. This difference in audience is used so that all presentations can be accomplished in a reasonable time. Appendix I-F lists those student presentations given before the entire class during the Spring 2005 semester. 4.7. Design Experience Undergraduate students in the electrical engineering program obtain their engineering design experience gradually by going through a well-planned curriculum. Students are introduced to the design aspects in electrical engineering starting from the first year. Freshman students are required to take a sequence of introductory design courses: ESE 123 and ESE 124. ESE 123 (Introduction to Electrical and Computer Engineering) covers basic electronic design principles through the modular design and construction of a specific electronic system. A different design specification is chosen each semester incorporating transducers, analog circuits, and digital circuits. Both analytic and computer-aided design approaches are used. The resulting design is built in the laboratory and basic electronic test equipment is used to verify its performance. ESE 124 (Computer Techniques For Electronic Design ) is an extensive introduction to problem-solving in electrical engineering using the ANSI C language. Topics covered include data types, operations, control flow, functions, data files, numerical techniques, pointers, structures, and bit operations. Students gain experience in applying the C language to the solution of a variety of electrical engineering problems, based on concepts developed in ESE 123. Knowledge of C at the level presented in this course is expected of all electrical engineering students in subsequent courses in the major. After the first year and after completing basic mathematics and physics courses, students enter into the middle part of the program by taking fundamental electrical engineering and other engineering courses to establish a solid and broad foundation of knowledge. These courses mainly emphasize engineering principles with some design examples and exercises. In the later part of the program, students take more advanced electrical engineering technical elective courses, which involve more and more design principles, examples and exercises. With faculty guidance, students normally select these technical courses in a technical area to attain depth, which naturally leads to their final choices of senior design projects. The last design experiences are gained through the two-course sequence, ESE 440 and 441 (Engineering Design I and II), a one year senior design course. In fact, the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Stony Brook was one of the forerunners in establishing a required design course sequence to be completed in the senior year by every undergraduate matriculating for the

82

Bachelor of Engineering degree. There are two components to this sequence of courses, a project component and a lecture series component. For the project component, students are organized into small teams, each of which completes a design project under the supervision of an electrical and computer engineering faculty member. Each team must submit two distinct written project reports. One for the first semester (ESE 440) is an Interim Technical Report on the project. A final technical report on the project is required for the second semester (ESE 441). In the lecture series component, speakers from local industry as well as faculty present various topics relating to engineering design, current technology, professional issues, engineering ethics, and career choices. As mentioned above, particular aspects of engineering design are gained by taking undergraduate courses. The following is a list of these courses along with description of their design components: 1. ESE 211 (Electronics Laboratory A): Diode circuits are designed, including some AC/DC

supply circuits. 2. ESE 304 (Applications of Operational Amplifiers): Design of electronic instrumentation:

structure of basic sensors and measurement systems, transducers, analysis and characteristics of operational amplifiers, analog signal conditioning with operational amplifiers, sampling, multiplexing, A/D and D/A conversion; digital signal conditioning, data input and displays, and automated measurement systems. Application of measurement systems to pollution of industrial monitoring is considered.

3. ESE 307 (Modern Filter Design): Design of electrical wave filters for communication and

control. Topics include: basic theorems on time and frequency response, physical realizability, minimum phase and attenuation characteristics; frequency transformation, transfer function synthesis based on insertion loss, optimum transmission, and maximum signal-to-noise ratio; and realization with LC elements, active circuits, and surface wave filters.

4. ESE 311 (Analog Integrated Circuits): The design component of ESE 311 consists of: (1)

discussions of circuit design problems and various trade-offs, (2) homework problems that emphasize circuit design subject to some specifications, and (3) project that involves computer aided design using PSpice.

5. ESE 314 (Electronics Laboratory B): Illustrates and expands upon concepts presented in ESE

372 (Electronics). Experiments include diode circuits, class A BJT, FET and differential amplifiers as well as analog signal processing.

6. ESE 315 (Control System Design): This course stresses design. Analysis is introduced only to

the extent that it facilitates design. The following design methods are used: (1) Root locus method, (2) Bode plot method, (3) Quadratic optimal systems and ITAE optimal systems, and (4) Design of compensations using linear algebraic methods. In (4) we discuss design to achieve pole placement and model matching. We also increase the degree of compensators to achieve robustness and disturbance rejection. The students are encouraged to use PC MATLAB to carry out all computations and simulations.

7. ESE 218 (Digital Systems Design): This is a fundamental course in digital systems. Students

are exposed to key concepts in the design and analysis of combinational and sequential logic circuits. Many different approaches to design and realization of systems are realizations using

83

standard modules and realizations using programmable logic devices. Tradeoffs of these realizations are analyzed. Students utilize modern design and simulation techniques using CAD tools. The students build and analyze prototype systems in the laboratory.

8. ESE 321 (Electromagnetic Waves and Wireless Communication): This course covers the

fundamental principles of wave generation and propagation in free space and in various waveguide structures, optical thin film guide, and optical fiber. Both radio and optical frequencies are discussed. Design examples and homework exercise are given in the course for various hardware elements in radio and optical communication systems.

9. ESE 324 (Electronics Laboratory C): While this required laboratory covers a number of

topics that students may study in our elective electronics course ESE 311 (Electronics Circuits Design), it also covers areas that students generally may not see in any of their regular courses. Experiments involving class B amplifiers, active RC filters, and oscillators fall in the former category. Some exciting experiments in speech processing, switched-capacitor filters, class C amplifiers, and switching power supply regulators fall into the latter category and make this laboratory uniquely enriching. Students perform complete design, simulation, construction, and testing of circuits.

10. ESE 330 (Integrated Electronics): The course offers an overview of the design and fabrication

of integrated circuits. Topics include gate-level and transistor-level level design; fabrication material and processes; layout of circuits; and automated design tools. This material is directly applicable to industrial IC design and provides a needed background for more advanced courses.

11. ESE 340 (Basic Communication Theory): The discussion of system level design issues

includes the concept of bandwidth as a resource, multiplexing, coherent and noncoherent modulation schemes.

12. ESE 342 (Digital Communication Systems): A significant part of the syllabus deals with

comparative performance of coded and non-coded digital communication systems, and the trade-off between bandwidth, data rate, reliability and signal power. These topics comprise important systems level design issues.

13. ESE 344 (Software Tools for Engineers): This course involves three complex and large (more

than 1,500 lines of code in total) software programming projects dealing with engineering and scientific applications. The complexity of the projects forces the student to design the software system using a top-down approach with careful prior thinking and meticulous planning. They learn gradually to design and develop large software systems. The design emphasizes modularity, computational efficiency, algorithm and representation (data structures), ease of debugging and testing and readability.

14. ESE 345 (Computer Architecture): Development of computer systems is a group activity. A

group activity needs congenial atmosphere, effective means of communication, and delegation of responsibility. Precision of communication becomes very critical during the phase when different components designed by different designers (design groups) are integrated into a desired system. The communication can be made precise through formal specification. (A formal specification by defining the responsibility of the designer associated with each

84

component, besides providing precise communications, leads to effective management.) The system should be formally specified and then developed in a theoretical manner. The design procedure decomposes the system into a set of modules. The modules are then formally specified with clean interfaces. Each module that incorporates these features is being taught in ESE 345 for development of processors and systems (both general-purpose systems and application specific systems).

15. ESE 346 (Computer Communications): Basic principles of computer communication design

and analysis. Technologies covered include packet networks, circuit switched networks, packet radio, local area networks, Aloha channels and protocols. System design tradeoffs are discussed. Techniques covered include algorithms for routing and statistical models of networks.

16. ESE 347 (Digital Signal Processing: Implementation): This is a 4 credit course with a

regularly scheduled laboratory (3 hours/week), based on the TMS320 family of digital signal processors. The design-oriented topics covered in the laboratory include: (1) design of a basic digital signal processing system, including sampling and restoration of signals and I/O; (2) design and implementation of simple FIR filters, (3) design and implementation of high order FIR filters, including low-pass, broadband differentiators, and Hilbert transformers, (4) design and implementation of simple IIR filters; effects of overflow and saturation, (5) design and implementation of higher-order IIR filters, with emphasis on bilinear transform designs, (6) digital oscillator design, and (7) implementation of a small system; design of modular and reusable code. Apart from the usual discussion of digital filter design techniques, one lecture discusses the design tradeoffs between analog and digital signal processing. This includes the costs of both approaches, and the relative rise in costs as performance requirements are raised; the differing impacts of various performance requirements on both technologies (e.g. high frequency demands analog, high accuracy and repeatability favor digital); the relative reliability, testability, and maintainability of systems based on each technology; and the comparative difficulties of production in each technology in both low and high volumes. The same comparisons are raised in discussing the design tradeoffs between various technologies for implementing purely digital signal processing systems: the advantages and disadvantages of fixed and floating-point processors, programmable signal processors, hardware-programmable VLSI, and combinations of these are discussed for differing performance requirements and production volumes.

17. ESE 350 (Electrical Power Systems): Fundamental engineering theory for the design and

operation of a modern electric power system. Modern aspects of generation, transmission, and distribution are considered with appropriate inspection trips to examine examples of these facilities. The relationship between the facilities and their influence on our environment are reviewed. Topics include power system fundamentals, characteristics of transmission lines, generalized circuit constants, transformers, control of power flow and of voltage, per unit system of computation, system stability, and extra-high voltage AC and DC transmission.

18. ESE 355 (VLSI System design): Introduces techniques and tools for scalable VLSI design and

analysis. Emphasis is on physical design and on performance analysis. Includes extensive lab experiments and hand-on usage of CAD tools.

19. ESE 356 (Digital System Specification and Modeling): Introduces concepts of specification

and modeling for design at various level of abstraction. High level specification language is

85

used for executable models creation, representing possible architecture implementations. Topics include design space exploration through fast simulation and reuse of models and implementation.

20. ESE 358 (Computer Vision): This course includes three programming projects with a total

weight of 30% of the course. The projects deal with practical problems chosen from machine vision, medical image analysis, and robotic vision. Each project is about 300 to 400 lines of software code written in the C/C++ programming language. The projects emphasize problem analysis, algorithm and data structure design, and efficient and modular implementation. Demonstration of the working project to the instructor is required.

21. ESE 362 (Optoelectronic Devices and Optical Imaging Techniques): Optical systems are

presented quantitatively through the use of radiometric concepts. Students compare performance of optical systems by optimizing the ratio of the target incidence to source sterance. This concept is integrated with signal to noise concepts in electronic systems in order to design hybrid systems comprising optical and electronic components.

22. ESE 363 (Fiber Optic Communications): Students were required to work in groups to design

and build a full-duplex fiber optic voice link, which they all did. This project involved a very significant independent design component. Students made oral presentations, demonstration of the voice link and an extensive written report. This was a one semester effort and worth 25% of the final grade.

23. ESE 372 (Electronics): This course teaches analysis followed by design of analog electronic

circuits. The design topics include the waveshaping and DC power supply applications of diodes, the design of BJT and FET amplifiers, and the audio-frequency power amplifiers.

24. ESE 380 and 381 (Embedded Microprocessor Systems Design I and II): These two very

popular courses present concepts of engineering design as they relate to microprocessor-based systems. In ESE 380 the fundamental concepts of the operation and design of microprocessor-based systems are presented; the material includes both hardware and software design, with tradeoffs between the two considered from the viewpoint of performance vs. cost. The design aspect is given even greater emphasis in ESE 381, where the design concepts are reinforced by the use of case studies involving the detailed design of several systems. When a completed design meets the original system requirements, other approaches to the system's structure and implementation, with the objective of enhancing performance or cost, are considered.

25. ESE 382 (Digital Design Using VHDL and PLDs): Digital hardware design using

programmable logic devices including simple and complex programmable logic devices (PLDs) and field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). Topics include review of combinational and sequential design, PLDs, FPGAs, hardware description design process, languages, simulation, and testing.

26. ESE 440/441 (Engineering Design I and II): described in section 4.4.

86

5. Faculty The Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering has 23 full-time faculty. At the time of writing, we had just completed two faculty searches and made two offers. Both of these were accepted and by the time of the ABET visit we expect two new assistant professors on board: Xin Wang and Milutin Stanacevic. The 25 faculty members will thus be distributed in ranks as follows: two Distinguished Professors, 10 Professors, seven Associate Professors, and six Assistant Professors.

The policy in the Department is to make the teaching loads consistent with faculty research activities as well as service and professional activities. We have several adjuncts who teach specialized courses. Their number varies from year to year.

Our faculty members are actively engaged in research and many are widely acclaimed for their accomplishments. Five of our faculty are IEEE Fellows. Figure B5-1 illustrates the annual research expenditures in the ECE department over the last ten years. We also have members of foreign engineering academies and fellows of the American Physical Society. Many of our faculty members have served as editors and associate editors of leading engineering journals, as well as chaired and organized major international conferences. In the past ten years our faculty published at least 14 textbooks and monographs. Ten of our faculty are holders of U.S. patents; total number of U.S. patents issued to our faculty is 64 at the latest count.

The chart below describes the annual research expenditures by our faculty over the past ten years. Given the approximately constant number of full-time faculty, the chart illustrates a spectacular growth of the electrical and computer Engineering research at Stony Brook.

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

(in $1,000)

Figure B5-1. Annual research expenditures in the ECE department by the fiscal year during the last ten years.

87

The range of research pursued by our faculty is very broad. The most significant funded programs are in:

• Semiconductor Optoelectronics

• DNA Sequencing Instrumentation

• Networking for distributed computing and communication

• Signal processing

• Wireless sensor networks

• Fluorescent sensors

• Novel computer architectures

• VLSI architecture for wireless

• Computer vision

• Novel X-ray sources

• Neural networks control

• Fiber-optic biosensors

An important part of our research enterprise is the New York State Center for Advanced Sensor Technology (Sensor CAT) designated by the Governor of New York in 1998 for ten years with the annual budget of $1M. The Sensor CAT has its own laboratories, personnel, and facilities, and its faculty members span the entire College of Engineering and beyond. But being rooted in the ECE department, the Sensor CAT has its largest effect on our academic programs. The Sensor CAT often provides a short-term technically meaningful employment to our undergraduate students and its facilities are widely used in their senior design projects.

The Sensor CAT helps leverage the externally funded research by channeling research efforts for the benefit of undergraduate education. It has become our tradition that, in parallel with the main research project, the Center supports relevant educational activities by undergraduate students. We make the students compete for projects by submitting their proposals to take on various scientific topics in the general field of the funded research. This multidisciplinary program teaches students not only the technical and scientific aspects but also the social and economic aspects of engineering science. Competition for projects is a very innovative aspect of our approach to engineering education, which has already enjoyed great success at the Center. There are no losers in this competition, as we do not turn any applicant away but allow them to join the winning teams. To allow an involvement as broad as possible, students are allowed to submit several proposals. Also, the proposal stage usually takes place early during the junior year, to give students a chance to revise and resubmit their proposals in time for the start of the senior design project. Finally, teaming mechanisms are devised to make sure all students participate in a significant design project. Rewarding mechanisms such as public presentations further enhance the students’ experience.

Stony Brook ECE Department leads the NSF funded Consortium for Security and Medical Sensor Systems, whose goal is to promote entrepreneurship and technology transfer activities through education and practical training. In a short time since its inception, the Sensor Consortium has

88

proven itself a successful model for amplifying the broader impact of any engineering research activity. The mission of the Consortium is to promote the entrepreneurial atmosphere on campus in every way possible.

The two-year award started 05/15/04 with the funding of $299,668 for the first year. The Consortium has Educational partners (four campuses on Long Island: Stony Brook, Hofstra, SUNY Farmingdale, and Suffolk Community College) and Research partners, including Brookhaven National Laboratory and several Long Island high-tech companies brought together by the Sensor CAT.

The unique element of the Consortium’s Educational activity is the formation of technology E-Teams (Entrepreneurial teams) comprising undergraduate students from each of the participating campuses. Selection process of these students is highly competitive and administered by the individual Education partner. Each team is led by a Stony Brook graduate student and supervised by Stony Brook faculty. The Consortium supports four E-Teams each year. We have selected four industry-sponsored projects, purchased the necessary equipment and the E-Teams are now working full steam. Students joining E-teams take the “Entrepreneurial Course” specially crafted and read by Prof Garret Wolf of the Harriman School of Management at Stony Brook. During the 2004 fall semester, the course met for one hour each Saturday with all four E-Teams present. The topics covered by the course include Creativity, Innovation and Intellectual Property; Planning a Venture; Developing a Business Plan; Financing the Venture; and Launching the Venture. One of the goals of this course is to have the students write a project plan for technology research for the year and a business plan for the product.

Besides the Education component, the Consortium has two other important activity components. Our Research and Technology Transfer component aims at the creation of a permanent infrastructure to promote entrepreneurial activity in security and medical sensor systems. We have initiated a funding database to serve partners of the Sensor Consortium. Plans for an annual Technology Conference are developed under the sponsorship of the Sensor CAT. Most of the E-Team projects have found potential industrial customers. The list of the judiciously chosen projects is as follows: “Wireless Sensor Networks for Perimeter Security Systems”, “ANGEL: embedded platform for improving on-campus security”, “RFID Sensor Networks for Hospitals”, and “Wireless Medical Sensor System for Asthma Patients”. Description of the projects and E-Teams’ composition can be found on the Consortium website.

The Consortium’s Outreach and Dissemination component has two-fold aims. On the one hand, we recruit entrepreneurs and mentors for our program and on the other we promote the Consortium’s achievements through the outreach partners and professional societies. All of them are on the distribution list for our news, publications and the events calendar. Consortium’s website http://www.ee.sunysb.edu/~sensorconsortium/ contains full information about our goals, programs, people, and current events. Of the current events, our most spectacular activity has been the series of seminars, which feature entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and other industry professionals as guest speakers. During the fall 2004 semester we held four such seminars. Success of these seminars exceeded expectation, owing in part to the quality of speakers, the well-run advertisement and, perhaps partially, to a good lunch provided by the Consortium. The main seminar room of the Stony Brook ECE department was filled to capacity, with a number of Stony Brook faculty members standing in the hall.

89

6. Facilities 6.1 Classrooms The University provides and maintains classrooms. Classrooms were recently renovated and equipped with overhead projectors and screens, and in large classrooms microphones and LCD projectors. Although classroom space is tight and must be allocated well in advance, it has been adequate for our needs, except for internet access. Only classrooms in the Engineering Quad have internet access at this time. An effort in under way to install wireless service in all buildings in the campus. Table B6-1 lists classrooms, normally assigned to our courses, with their locations, seating capacity, room type, and equipment type.

Table B6-1: Classroom Facilities

Room Number

Building Room Type Seating Capacity

Equipment

103 Javits Lecture Center Auditorium 103 Data/video projector, internet, 35mm slide projector, overhead projector,TV/VCR,VHS&DVD.

108 Javits Lecture Center Auditorium 40 Data/video projector, internet, 35mm slide projector, overhead projector,TV/VCR,VHS&DVD.

111 Javits Lecture Center Auditorium 103 Data/video projector, internet, 35mm slide projector, overhead projector,TV/VCR,VHS&DVD.

116 Old Chemistry Lecture Hall 232 Data/video projector, VHS,

overhead projector. 131 Earth & Space Lecture Hall 99 overhad projector. 143 Old Engineering Lecture Hall 183 Video projector, VHS, overhead

projector. 145 Old Engineering Lecture Hall 183 Video projector, VHS, overhead

projector. 102 Light Engineering Lecture Hall 124 Data projector, overhad projector.

231 SB Union Classroom 47 Overhead projector, screen. 237 SB Union Classroom 47 Overhead projector, screen. 134 Old Chemistry Classroom 30 Overhead projector, screen. 135 Old Chemistry Classroom 30 Overhead projector, screen. 138 Old Chemistry Classroom 39 Overhead projector, screen. 144 Old Chemistry Classroom 77 Overhead projector, screen. 104 Harriman Hall Classroom 60 Overhead projector, screen. 115 Harriman Hall Classroom 30 Overhead projector, screen. 116 Harriman Hall Classroom 75 Overhead projector, screen. 152 Light Engineering Classroom 50 Overhead projector, screen. 154 Light Engineering Classroom 42 Overhead projector, screen.

90

Table B6-1: Classroom Facilities (Cont.)

Room Number

Building Room Type Seating Capacity

Equipment

201 Heavy Engineering Classroom 90 Overhead projector, screen. N3063 Melville Library Classroom 39 Overhead projector, screen. N3074 Melville Library Classroom 31 Overhead projector, screen. N4006 Melville Library Classroom 49 Overhead projector, screen. P112 Physics Classroom 52 Overhead projector, screen. P113 Physics Classroom 80 Overhead projector, screen. P116 Physics Classroom 52 Overhead projector, screen. P122 Physics Classroom 29 Overhead projector, screen. P123 Physics Classroom 29 Overhead projector, screen. P124 Physics Classroom 29 Overhead projector, screen. P125 Physics Classroom 29 Overhead projector, screen. P127 Physics Classroom 52 Overhead projector, screen. P129 Physics Classroom 30 Overhead projector, screen. 144 Psychology A Classroom 33 Overhead projector, screen. 146 Psychology A Classroom 46 Overhead projector, screen. 79 Earth & Space Classroom 50 Overhead projector, screen. 177 Earth & Space Classroom 28 Overhead projector, screen.

N117 Social and Behavioral sciences

Classroom 33 Overhead projector, screen.

S218 Social and Behavioral sciences

Classroom 40 Overhead projector, screen.

2047 Humanities Classroom 25 Overhead projector, screen. 6.2 Libraries The Science and Engineering Library at Stony Brook is housed in the Main (Melville) Library. It occupies two floors, with additional resources including ample desks for students, internet access, copy and duplication facilities, and professional assistance. The library is committed to making available electronic resource materials, including online journals and handbooks, provisions and resources for access to educational websites, workshops that describe library facilities, and continual updates to the software infrastructure. Within the past two years, the library completely revamped its electronic catalog system, STARS, resulting in substantial improvements in capability, ease of use, and speed. The interlibrary loan program is somewhat slow but works well. 6.3 Computing Facilities The computing facilities available to students fall into three categories: (1) those supported and maintained by the University's Division of Information Technology, (2) College-wide computing facilities supported and maintained by the Dean's Office, and (3) those that are maintained by the

91

departments and were purchased and supported from funds provided through the Office of the Dean.

6.3.1 University Computing facilities The University’s computing environment includes a continuously changing and updated array of hardware, software, network connections, and consulting services. The Stony Brook Instructional Networked Computing (SINC) sites, with a variety of computers, software, and printers, are located throughout the campus. In addition to the over 600 general access computers, an additional 150 are available in the residence halls.

Unless machines are reserved for specific classes, the equipment in all SINC sites is accessible to any student during operating hours, staffed by trained student consultants who are available for assistance. The sites listed below are in facilities within CEAS and used heavily by our students. The Computing Center is open until 11:30 p.m. and at least one site is staffed until 1 a.m. Sunday through Thursday. The site in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics is available 24 hours a day for students taking courses that are required to use the lab.

• Engineering - 40 Pentium 4, 2.0GHz, 256MB RAM, printers, scanner - Purchased 1/02.

• Computing Center - 24 Pentium 4, 2.80 GHz, 512 MB RAM, printers - Purchased 5/04

• Math/Applied Math/Physics - 24 P4, 2.80 GHz, 512 MB RAM, printers - Purchased 5/04. 13 P4, 2.66 GHz 512 Mg RAM - Purchased 5/03. 30 P4, Linux workstations used by students taking Math, Applied Math or Physics courses.

• Computer Science - 34 P4 2.66 GHz, 512 MB RAM, printers - Purchased 5/03.

6.3.2 CEAS Computing Facilities The office of the Dean currently supports three Computer Aided Design laboratories. These laboratories are located in Rooms 110, 112-114 and 236 of the Engineering building. Each of these facilities have been renovated and upgraded since the last ABET visit. The facility in Rm 110 has SUN workstations and is accessible via the campus network 24 hours a day. Two electrical engineering courses utilize this room as a teaching laboratory: ESE 330 and ESE 355

6.3.3 ECE Department Computing Facility

The Electrical and Computer Engineering Computer Aided Design Laboratory is the primary computing resource for all undergraduate courses taught in the department. The ECE CAD Lab offers undergraduate students access to CAD software tools used to analyze, model, simulate, and better understand engineering concepts. Currently the lab supports every undergraduate course in the department, represented by over 1200 active accounts at this time. Recent improvements in this facility have increased user demand to the point that the facility will need to expand in the next year to adequately serve the undergraduate need for CAD tools and computing resources. The following courses utilize the ECE CAD Lab for schematic capture, analog design and simulation, digital design and simulation, math packages, and compilers:

92

ESE 123, ESE 124, ESE 211, ESE 271, ESE 300, ESE 305, ESE 306, ESE 314, ESE 315, ESE 218, ESE 324, ESE 337, ESE 345, ESE 346, ESE 347, ESE 357, ESE 358, ESE 372, ESE 373, ESE 380, ESE 381, ESE 382, ESE 440, ESE 441, ESE 475 The ECE CAD Lab currently has a total of 40 Dell Dimension PC's. All of the computers are networked via switched ethernet 10 Base-T to a Dell PowerEdge file server. There are three 3COM Superstack II 1100 24-port 10Base-T switches that connect all the devices in the lab via a star topology. The server is a Dell PowerEdge 4200 with dual 333MHz Pentium II processors, four 9 GB UW-SCSI hard drives, 512MB RAM, and two 10/100 PCI network adapters. Novell Netware 4.2 is the network operating system. All the PC's run MS Windows NT Workstation 4.0 as the client operating system. Two network laser printers, a HP Laserjet 8100DN and a HP LaserJet 8000DN, are available for students to print their results. The lab has consistently improved each year thanks to annual ABET funds that were put in place to maintain the lab facilities. This has been the greatest single difference in the CAD Lab, the ability to slowly over several years buy new PC’s, Networking hardware, Network Printers, and Servers. The ECE CAD Lab is in the best condition it has ever enjoyed thanks to this funding and the ability to plan purchases over several years. The following software packages are available to the users on the network: • Cadence LDV (VHDL and Verilog) • Visio Technical • Workview Office - Viewlogic Systems Inc. • Matlab - The Mathworks Inc. • Maple - Waterloo Maple Inc. • Aldec Active HDL – Aldec • Syplicity Pro – Synplicity • ISP Lever - Lattice • Electronics Workbench - Interactive Image Technologies Inc. • Turbo Assembler – Borland • Microsoft Visual Studio C, C++, J++ - Microsoft • Microsoft Office - Microsoft • Pspice Capture, Pspice A/D - Cadence • Texas Instruments TMS329 family development tools • More packages are being added each year 6.4 Undergraduate Laboratory Facilities At present there are seven fully operational undergraduate instructional laboratories. Table B6-2 contains information regarding the location, utilization, adequacy for instruction, and the size of the fully operational instructional laboratories. The department has several research laboratories that are used by students in ESE 440/441 (Engineering Design) and ESE 499 (Research in Electrical Sciences).

93

Table B6-2: Undergraduate Instructional Laboratory Facilities

Physical Facility Building and Room Number

Purpose of Laboratory Including Courses Taught

Condition of Lab-oratory

Adequacy for Instruction

Number of Student Stations

Area (Sq. Ft.)

Instructional Laboratories Analog Electronics Lt. Eng. – 283

Basic electrical engineering measurement techniques (ESE 123, 211, 314, 324)

Good Good 18 1,016

Computer Aided Design Lt. Eng. – 281

Computer Aided Design supports all electrical and computer engineering undergraduate courses

Good Good 40 1,300

Digital Signal Processing Lt. Eng. – 179

Digital Signal Processing – Implementation (ESE 347)

Good Good 10 375

Digital Systems Design Lt. Eng. – 283A

Basic logic and systems design (ESE 218)

Good Good 14 632

Embedded Systems Lt. Eng – 230

Microprocessor and embedded system design (ESE 380, 381, 440, 441, 476, 499)

Good Good 10 1300

Rapid Systems Prototyping Lt. Eng. – 228

Advanced digital system design using VHDL ESE 382,440,441,499.

Good Good 10 1300

Senior Design Lt. Eng. - 283B

Senior project construction and test. (ESE440/441) and WISE Program

Good Good 17 771

The following section gives a more detailed description and assessment of all instructional facilities. Assessment of Equipment and Instrumentation 6.4.1 Digital Systems Design Laboratory This laboratory serves ESE-218 (Digital System Design). The laboratory contains fourteen workstations, each consisting of an Agilent 54603B 60 MHz Dual Trace Oscilloscope, a Hewlett Packard Model 54620A Digital Logic Analyzer and an E&L Ruggedized CADET II Digital Designer. The HP Digital Logic Analyzer can capture and display up to 16 channels of digital data via a flexible dual 8-channel cable. Data acquisition is accomplished by normal, time base, channel activity, or glitch triggering.

94

The E&L Instruments Ruggedized CADET II is a multi-function breadboard system, which consists of the following:

• A three section Solderless Breadboard for the construction and testing of circuits,

• A function generator, which outputs sine waves, triangle waves, square waves, and TTL square waves from 0.1 Hz to 100 kHz.

• Three internal power supplies with a fixed +5VDC, a +1.3 to +15 VDC variable output, and a -1.3 to -15 VDC variable output.

• 16 LED logic indicators (8 logic HIGH and 8 Logic LOW)

• 8 Logic switches, two debounced switches, and a 8 ohm speaker The CAD laboratory is used in conjunction with this laboratory for the design, modeling, and simulation of all Digital circuits built and tested for laboratory experiments. 6.4.2 Analog Laboratory This lab serves the ESE 123, ESE 211, ESE 314, and ESE 324 engineering courses. It contains eighteen workstations equipped for testing simple to complex analog circuits, from DC to 15 MHz. Each workstation consists of the following test equipment:

• Dell Dimension Personal Computer with ATE connectivity and HPVee software.

• Agilent Model 54621A 60 MHz Two Channel Digital Storage Oscilloscope.

• Agilent Model E3631A Triple Output Power Supply with a variable +6 VDC and +/- 25 VDC outputs.

• Fluke Model 45 High Resolution Digital Multimeter with Frequency Counter and Dual Display for simultaneous measurements.

• Agilent Model 33120A Arbitrary Waveform Generator that produces various signals from 0.1 Hz to 15 MHz.

• Tektronix Model CFG280 Function Generator that produces various signals from 0.1 Hz to 11 MHz along with a 100 MHz Frequency Counter.

• E&L Cadet Digital Designer for digital designs.

• Three section Solderless Breadboard for the construction and testing of circuits designed in the laboratory.

• A Tektronix Model 571 Transistor Curve Tracer and a Philips Model 6303A Automatic RLC meter are available for general use. The workstations are networked through a 3Com SuperStacker 1100 24 port switch to a HP 4200TN LaserJet Network Printer.

The CAD laboratory is used in conjunction with this laboratory for the design, modeling, and simulation of all Analog and Digital circuits built and tested for laboratory experiments. This laboratory is in use every weekday and most nights during each semester. In addition to normal lab hours, students use this lab on an irregular basis to do additional work beyond the limit of the formal lab sessions.

95

6.4.3 Senior Design Laboratory This laboratory supports ESE 363, ESE 373, ESE 440, ESE 441, and the Women In Science and Engineering program. This laboratory is mostly used for the design, construction, and testing of Senior Design Projects. It contains ten general work stations consisting primarily of:

• Dell Dimension Personal Computer • Agilent Model 54603B 60 MHz Two Channel Digital Storage Oscilloscope. • Tektronix PS280 Triple Output Power Supply with a fixed +5 VDC and two variable 30 VDC outputs. • Agilent Model 34410A Precision Digital Multimeter. • Agilent Model 33120A Arbitrary Waveform Generator that produces various signals from 0.1 Hz to 15 MHz.

One RF work station consists of the following Agilent equipment:

• E4401B Spectrum Analyzer with tracking generator. • 8648A Synthesized Signal Generator, 0.01 to 1000 MHz. • 4285A Precision LCR Meter, 75 kHz to 30 MHz. • E5100A Network Analyzer, 100 kHz to 180 MHz. • 54642A 500 MHz Two Channel Digital Storage Oscilloscope. • 1142 Active Probe Station

The remaining six work stations consist of one SunBlade 150 and five Dell Dimension Personal Computers that contain several engineering software packages. All PC’s are connected to a HP 4100TN LaserJet Network Printer through a 3Com SuperStacker 3300 24 port switch and to the internet through a 3Com OfficeConnect Firewall. There is also a library of Manufacturers Data Books for the research and selection of project components. 6.4.4 Embedded Systems Design Laboratory (ESDL) The Embedded Systems Design Laboratory (ESDL) is devoted to teaching and system design projects involving embedded microprocessor based systems. The laboratory is located in the Light Engineering building in room 230. The facility is used primarily to support the laboratory portions of two undergraduate courses: ESE 380 and ESE 381, Embedded Microprocessor Systems Design I and II. This laboratory contains 10 student stations, each of which supports a group of 2 students. Each student station is equipped with a personal computer (PC), a full function solderless breadboarding system, an EVB188EB/+ Single Board Microcomputer, a Fluke model 45 dual display Digital Multimeter, an HP 54603B Digital Storage Oscilloscope, and a variety of other test equipment. Also available in this laboratory is a device programming station that is used in ESE-380, ESE-381, ESE-499, and ESE-440/441, to program PLDs, EPROMS, and other programmable devices. Each lab station PC is networked via a 100 Base-T Ethernet LAN to a dual Pentium network server. The server is RAID 1 compliant and has six high capacity high speed SCSI hard drives. At present

96

the server is running the Novell Version 4.2 network operating system. The laboratory LAN is connected to the campus switched Ethernet network. This provides high speed access to a variety of on and off campus computer systems and Web sites. This server also supports the DSRPL facility (see below). 6.4.5 Digital Systems Rapid Prototyping Laboratory (DSRPL) The Digital Systems Rapid Prototyping Laboratory is devoted to teaching, research, and system design projects involving advanced digital systems based on embedded microprocessor based systems and or VHDL based digital systems. The laboratory is located in room 228 of the Light Engineering building. This facility is structured to support advanced digital design projects, as well as the laboratory portion of an undergraduate upper level VHDL digital design course, ESE-382. The lab room is configured with design stations equipped with Pentium based workstations that are networked to the laboratory's RAID 1 compliant Novell server. Each workstation provides access to a number of sophisticated software design packages, including ActiveHDL by Aldec, Synplify from Synplicty, ispLEVER from Lattice Semiconductor, and other related software packages. All software packages utilize floating licensing, and are available on virtually all computers in the DSRPL, as well as the ESDL. The project design stations may also be configured with a variety of test and debugging equipment, as needed for a respective project. Available are CodeTap system testers, in-circuit emulators, logic analyzers, analog oscilloscopes, digital storage oscilloscopes, and a variety of other standard lab test equipment. Further available in this room is a device programming station that supports a very large number of programmable logic devices including EPROMs, microcontrollers, standard and complex PLDs, and FPGAs. Currently this lab supports embedded system designs based on the 80C188EB and several industry standard single chip microcontrollers. Digital systems designs using VHDL, and CPLDs and FPGAs from Lattice, Xilinx, and Altera are currently supported. 6.4.6 Digital Signal Processing Laboratory (DSP) The Digital Signal Processing Laboratory has a HP Spectrum Analyzer, FlexDSP in-circuit emulator and the capability for Real-time DSP implementation. The laboratory has ten workstations, each of which contains a Pentium4-class personal computer with 504 Mbyte of RAM, 75 Gbyte of hard disk, and high-resolution monitor. Each station has a 60 MHz 2-channel digital oscilloscope, function generator, Texas Instruments TMS320C6713 DSP Starter Kit, and Texas Instruments TMS320C6701 Evaluation Module. All of the stations have a full set of development tools (Texas Instruments Code Composer Studio, C compiler, assembler, linker, and simulator) for the TMS320C67xx family; this software, with the simulator target, is also available in the CAD lab, providing students with access outside laboratory hours. All of the stations are networked to the CADLAB, so that the code developed in the CADLAB is available to the students for their labs. This facility supports ESE 347 (Digital Signal Processing: Implementation), ESE 440 (Engineering Design I), and ESE441 (Engineering Design II). ESE347 has a regularly scheduled laboratory (3 hours/week). The experiments performed include:

97

o design and implementation of simple FIR filters;

o design and implementation of high-order FIR filters, including low-pass, broadband differentiators, and Hilbert transformers;

o design and implementation of simple IIR filters, with effects of overflow and saturation;

o design and implementation of higher-order IIR filters, with special emphasis on bilinear transform designs;

o design of digital oscillators.

o AM and SSB modulation/demodulation 6.5 Maintaining and Servicing Laboratory Equipment Analog Laboratory, Digital Systems Design Laboratory, and Senior Design Laboratory A full-time technician is in charge of these three facilities. While his contributions are adequate for maintenance and service, hiring another technician would be helpful to improve laboratory operation. Computer Aided Design Laboratory A full-time electrical engineer is employed to manage every aspect of the CAD Laboratory. This includes troubleshooting and repairing any hardware problems in the 40 client PC's, the network server, networking equipment, and network printers. Four undergraduate work-study assistants provide additional support for this facility. Digital Signal Processing Laboratory At present, the only provision for technical support for this laboratory is 20% of the time of the CAD Laboratory support individual. While we do not believe that the DSP Lab needs a dedicated technician at this point, we feel that adding another full time technical support to all three facilities will help our capability for improving this program. Embedded Systems Design Laboratory A full-time electrical engineer and several paid student assistants provide full support of the laboratory. Rapid Systems Prototyping Laboratory The same full time electrical engineer and paid student assistants assigned to the Embedded Systems Design Laboratory are also responsible for full maintenance of the Rapid Systems Prototyping Laboratory.

98

6.6 Plan for Improvement of Instructional Laboratories Analog Laboratory

• Develop and incorporate ATE based experiments for ESE 314 and ESE 324. This is planned for summer 05.

Computer Aided Design Laboratory The Electrical and Computer Engineering CAD Laboratory is heavily used during every hour it is open. As a result of recent improvements to the lab it has become the preferred place to work even for students who already have computers at home. While this was one of the short-term goals for the lab, it has highlighted a number of important issues that need to be addressed:

• Software Budget and Annual Software Maintenance Fees Donations from Microsoft, sharing software from university instructional sites, and renewal of Cadence annual maintenance agreement by the department have been adequate in providing students with the necessary CAD tools needed for their course work and design projects. Establishing a regular budget to purchase new software packages or pay the annual software maintenance fees would be desirable.

• Lab Expansion

Within next year, we plan turn the graduate CAD lab in room 281A, which is adjacent to the undergraduate CAD Lab, into a graduate/undergraduate lab. The lab will be equipped with unix based workstations and used to support teaching of undergraduate courses such as ESE 355 (VLSI) and ESE 330 (Integrated Electronics).

Digital System Design Laboratory This facility is currently adequate for teaching the laboratory component of ESE 218 (Digital System Design). Increasing the square footage of the lab would allow more students in each lab session. Digital Signal Processing Laboratory

o Ensuring adequate technical support o Ensuring adequate and competent TA support

Senior Design Laboratory

• An access system that documents entries so that seniors can use the lab after hours and on weekends for Senior Design projects.

• Upgrade the Personal Computers to accommodate more demanding engineering software packages such as Cadence 15.1.

• Soldering stations should be added for construction of senior designs.

99

7. Institutional Support and Financial Resources Table B7-1 provides data on expenditures for the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department in the categories of operations (not including faculty and staff salaries), travel, equipment, and graduate teaching assistants, for fiscal years: 2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004. The budget is adequate for maintaining and running the program, in particular, the budget for instructional laboratories equipment purchases has been increased from $40,000 to $50,000 per year for each of the two programs in the department.

Table B7-1 ECE Department Support Expenditures

Expenditure Category Fiscal Year

2001 - 2002 2002 - 2003 2003 - 2004 2004 - 2005 (prior to previous

year) (previous year) (current year) (year) “of visit”

Operations (1) (not including staff) $112,315 $90,387 $81,070 0

Travel (2) $24,317 $15,190 $14,723 0

Equipment (3) $105,564 $152,670 $103,915 0

Graduate Teaching Assistants $433,529 $407,274 $318,915 0

Totals: $675,725 $665,521 $518,623

7.1 Resources to acquire, maintain, and operate equipment and facilities The Dean of the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences has committed to provide a minimum of $50,000 for equipment upgrading and replacement each year. Each academic year, the ABET equipment committee reviews equipment requests and makes a determination of what equipment to purchase. These determinations take into account the actual funds provided by the Dean for that particular year, grants for equipment purchase, equipment donations, curriculum changes, and the current status of existing equipment. The Department intends to continue its development program for new upper division laboratories. A significant amount of new equipment has been placed in the undergraduate laboratories since the last general review. In some laboratories, such as the CAD laboratory, all of the equipment has been replaced in the past six years. The amount of funds made available for equipment has increased since the last ABET visit. The amounts spent for instructional equipment and associated software since the last general review are: 1999/2000 $90,638.24 2000/2001 $150,228.20 2001/2002 $96,37.07

100

2002/2003 $116,270.05 2003/2004 $97,829.34 2004/2005 $160,000 The actual equipment purchased is listed in Table B7-2 separated by laboratory within each year. The codes for the laboratories are: ANA Analog Laboratory CAD CAD Laboratory DSP Digital Signal Processing Laboratory DIG Digital Systems Design ESDL Embedded Systems Design Laboratory DSRPL Rapid Systems Prototyping Laboratory SDL Senior Design Laboratory

101

Table B7-2: New Equipment Since Last ABET Visit DATE LAB QUANT

ITY ABET ITEM DESCRIPTION COST

99-00 ANA 19 Triple Output Power Supply $16,465.40 CAD 1 HP LaserJet 8100DN CAD 7 Dell Dimension XPS T500MHz Pentium III Minitower CAD 7 MS Office 2000 and license software bundle with Dell PC’s $19,958.84 DIG 15 CADET Digital Trainer $4,499.25 DSP 1 TMDS EVM Bundle $3,226.75 DSP 1 In-Circuit Emulator $3,085.00 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Universal Programmers and Adapters, BP Systems $4447 ESDL/DSRPL 12 Dell Computers, GX110, Pentium III, 533MHz $15,906 ESDL/DSRPL 3 Agilent Logic Analyzer and Software $7792 ESDL/DSRPL NA Aldec ActiveHDL Software License $4305 ESDL/DSRPL NA Synplicity Software License $1203 ESDL/DSRPL NA OrCAD Software $4875 ESDL/DSRPL NA Paradigm Software License $4875 $90,638.24

00-01 CAD 14 Dell Dimension 4100 CAD 1 3COM OfficeConnect Internet Firewall DMZ $20,362.70 DSP 1 Visual Automation Builder Software $3,015.00 DSP 1 TMCC6711 DSK $2,340.00 DSP 1 AC97 Codec Boards $1,188.00 DSP 12 TMSC6701 EVM (Donation) $29,940.00 DSP 12 Code Composer Studio (Donation) $35,940.00 ESDL/DSRPL NA Aldec ActiveHDL Software License $3940 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Universal Programmer and Adapters, BP Systems $ 8151 ESDL/DSRPL 10 Dell Computers, GX-110, 866MHz PIII $ 16926 ESDL/DSRPL 5 Dell Computers, GX-150, Pentium III, 1 GHz $ 6015 ESDL/DSRPL 3 SHORTESS RAWSON, MasterLab Trainers $ 3210 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Insight, Printers $ 1026 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Digi-Key, Starter/Eval Kit $ 998 SDL 5 2-Channel 60 MHz Oscilloscope $8,032.0 SDL 1 Network Analyzer $9,144.00 $150,228.20

01-02 ANA 10 15 MHz Arbitrary Waveform Generator $12,565.00 ANA 1 3COM Super Stack II Switch 1100, 24 Port $755.25 CAD 8 Dell Dimension 4400 with 1.6GHz P4 CPU CAD 10 Dimension 4300, Pentium 4 Processor at 1.6GHz $21,086.00 DIG 15 E&L Instruments Ruggedized CADET II $6,056.25 ESDL/DSRPL 4 Assoc Pro Sys, FPGA Boards and Accy's $3169.00

102

Table B7-2: New Equipment Since Last ABET Visit (Cont.) DATE LAB QUANT

ITY ABET ITEM DESCRIPTION COST

ESDL/DSRPL 5 Agilent Tech, Oscilloscopes $12487.00 ESDL/DSRPL 4 Micro/Sys SBC Computers (PC-104) and Accy's $1500.00 ESDL/DSRPL 7 Dell Computers, GX-150, Pentium III, 1 GHz $ 11416.00 ESDL/DSRPL 7 Dell Computers, GX-150, Pentium III, 1 GHz $ 5815.00 ESDL/DSRPL NA Aldec ActiveHDL Software - Site Licensing $2265.00 SDL 1 3COM OfficeConnect Internet Firewall 25 $458.70 SDL 10 Digital Multimeter $6,965.00 SDL 1 Directional Coupler $84.95 SDL 1 Drill Press $184.95 SDL 1 Drill Press Vise $55.55 SDL 1 HP LaserJet Network Printer $1,587.73 SDL 1 HSS Jobber Drill Bit Index Set $43.20 SDL 1 Kay 132 dB Step Attenuator $299.00 SDL 2 Ocsilloscope/Logic Analyzer $4,996.00 SDL 1 Power Splitter $48.00 SDL 50 RJ45 Plugs $49.99 SDL 50 RJ45 Plugs $89.95 SDL 2 Solid Carbide Circuit Board Drill Bit, 1/32" $7.20 SDL 2 Solid Carbide Circuit Board Drill Bit, 1/8" $7.96 SDL 2 Solid Carbide Circuit Board Drill Bit, 3/32" $8.32 SDL 2 Solid Carbide Circuit Board Drill Bit, 3/64 $6.98 SDL 1 Transmission/Reflection Test Set $2,184.00 SDL 2 Vector R-X Analyst (0.5 - 32 MHz) $399.90 $96,37.07

02-03 ANA 1 3Com 10/100 Managed NIC, 25 Pack $700.00 ANA 1 Cat 5e Plenum Cable 1000 $199.95 ANA 18 GPIB Cable, 1 Meter $1,166.40 ANA 18 GPIB Cable, 2 Meters $1,468.80 ANA 18 GPIB Measurement Storage Module $10,278.00 ANA 1 HP LaserJet Network Printer $1,671.30 ANA 18 PCI GPIB Interface Card $6,514.20 CAD 1 Dell PowerEdge 4600 Server CAD 8 Dell Dimension 4550 with 2.0GHz P4 and 512MB

RAM CAD 1 Veritas Backup Exec CAD 1 Novell Netware 6 w/ 100 user license $18,979.00 ESDL/DSRPL 1 CDW, Fluke Nettool,Hp Printer $ 3,143 ESDL/DSRPL NA Aldec, Ed License $8,400 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Bull, 3com Connect Firewall $ 1,464

103

Table B7-2: New Equipment Since Last ABET Visit (Cont.) DATE LAB QUANT

ITY ABET ITEM DESCRIPTION COST

ESDL/DSRPL NA Synplicity, Synplify Pro $6,960 ESDL/DSRPL 4 Dell, Computers $6855 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Dell, 4600 Server $18109 ESDL/DSRPL NA Dell, Netware $870 ESDL/DSRPL NA Crossbow, Tilt Sensor $1116 ESDL/DSRPL 3 Dell, Hard Drives $687 ESDL/DSRPL 1 CDW, Printers $810 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Govconnection, Storage 5000xt Firewire $ 974 ESDL/DSRPL 4 CDW, Printer/Supplies $3,761 ESDL/DSRPL 1 National Inst., Bundle/Labview $ 4,584 SDL 1 3COM SuperStack 3 Switch 3300, 24 Port $957.00 SDL 1 Pi-Network Test Fixture $1,494.40 SDL 1 Precision LCR Meter, 75 kHz to 30 MHz $14,700.80 SDL 1 Test Fixture for 4285A $251.20 SDL 1 Variable CL Adapter Kit for 4285A Precision LCR Meter $156.00 $116,270.05

03-04 ANA 1 Dell Personal Computer 2.8 GHz $1,374.72 ANA

ANA ANA

1 2 22

Dell Personal Computer 2.8 GHz 120GB Dell Personal Computer 2.6 GHz Connectors

$1,366.12$2164.64$279.96

CAD 15 Dimension 4600 Series, Intel Pentium 4 Processor at 2.6GHz with HT Technology w/ 512MB RAM

$19,375.65

DSP 12 TMCC6713 DSK $4,276.00 ESDL/DSRPL 11 LinkSYS and 3COM Switches $3472 ESDL/DSRPL 14 Dell 4600 Computers $19013 ESDL/DSRPL 4 AVR Mega128 Developer Package and Accy's $695.14 ESDL/DSRPL 10 Linksys Gigabit 8Port switch $3546.74 ESDL/DSRPL 2 Mega 128 Developer’s Package $1788 ESDL/DSRPL 14 Dell Dimension 4600 Computers $19,013.96 ESDL/DSRPL 4 CodeVisionAVR C Compiler $600 ESDL/DSRPL 5 Amtel ICE-50 In-Circuit Emulator $6539.50 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Starter Kit $4750 ESDL/DSRPL 1 DIGIKEY Wireless Control $803 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Connectors $769.75 SDL 2 15 MHz Arbitrary Waveform Generator $3,355.20 SDL 2 2-Channel 60 MHz Oscilloscope $4,481.60 SDL 2 Dell Personal Computer 2.6 GHz $2,164.64 SDL 1 Spectrum Analyzer w/Option 1DN $11,462.40 SDL 1 Synthesized Signal Generator, 0.01 to 1000 MHz $5,493.60

104

Table B7-2: New Equipment Since Last ABET Visit (Cont.) DATE LAB QUANT

ITY ABET ITEM DESCRIPTION COST

SDL 22 Various RF Connectors $150.70 SDL 1 Agilent 54642A 2-channel 500 MHz Oscilloscope $5469.10 SDL 1 Agilent 1144A Active probe for 53642A $599.20 SDL 1 Agilent 1142A Probe Control and Power Module $713.60 SDL 1 Agilent N2757A GPIB Interface Module $177.10 $97,829.34

04-05 ANA 19 N2757A GPIB Interface Module $6,080.00 ANA 19 34401A Digital Multimeter $15,122.10 ANA 19 54621A 2-channel 60 Mhz Oscilloscope $37,253.30 ANA 3 82350B GPIB PCI Card $1,243.20 ANA 8 10833A GRIB Cable, 1 Meter $384.00 ANA 1 HPVEE 7.0 ATE Software $1,495.00 CAD 15 Dell Dimension 4600 w/2.8GHz P4 $20,153.40 DSP NA Advanced DSP Educator Kit $4,523.00 ESDL/DSRPL 15 Waveform Generator $22,236.00 ESDL/DSRPL 15 1 Year Warranty $1,472.55 ESDL/DSRPL 8 E3631A Power Supply $6,932.00 ESDL/DSRPL 8 1 Year Warranty $314. 24 ESDL/DSRPL 20 Optical Shaft Encoder w/index and static drag $1071.68 ESDL/DSRPL 15 Atmel AVR JTAG-ICE serial and USB interface $2,242.50 ESDL/DSRPL 15 Atmel AVR STK500 $585.00 ESDL/DSRPL 15 Atmel AVR 501 Extension Board $585.00 ESDL/DSRPL 10 Atmel ATMega 128 Microcontroller $152.00 ESDL/DSRPL 2 Programmer Module 28 pin for BP1200 $390.00 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Analog Output Board $1165.50 ESDL/DSRPL 1 I/O connector block noise rejecting & shielded $265.50 ESDL/DSRPL 1 Cable noise rejecting shielded $85.50 SDL 4 125 MHz full dupes module MF699 $500.76 SDL 2 125MHz full duplex module MF799 $250.38 SDL 2 500 m spool Fibers SH4001 $710.00 SDL 5 Bulk Head Adapters IF-C-S4 $50.00 SDL 1 Power Meter OPM 4-1 C#370220 $549.00 SDL 1 AC Adapter $55.00

105

Table B7-2: New Equipment Since Last ABET Visit (Cont.) DATE LAB QUANT

ITY ABET ITEM DESCRIPTION COST

SDL LED Source $399.00 SDL SMA Adapter $50.00 SDL Polish Plate $32.00 SDL Crimp tools IF-370045 $150.00 SDL Cutters $30.00 $126,528.61

7.2 Support Personnel The department has three-full time technical support personnel: 1) Anthony Olivo, who oversees the operation and maintenance of the Analog Lab, the Digital Design Lab, and the Senior Design Lab; 2) Scott Tierno, who oversees the operation and maintenance of the Embedded Systems Design Laboratory and the Digital Systems Rapid Prototyping Laboratory; and 3) Scott Campbell, who oversees the Computer Aided Design Laboratory and the Digital Signal Processing Laboratory. In addition to technical support, the department’s operation is supported by four full-time staff assistants: Maria Kraus, Carolyn Huggins, Deborah Kloppenburg, and Judy Eimer. Carolyn Huggins is a staff assistant in the undergraduate student office in the department. Her responsibilities include:

• Maintaining a folder on each student in the major. The folder contains student’s transcript, major and track; a checklist of courses required for the major; and a record of requests made by the student and the Program Director’s decisions.

• Helping students registering for courses.

• Placing a registration block on freshman and transfer students to prevent them from registering for courses without seeing an advisor.

• Process transfer evaluation forms.

• Updating the Department’s undergraduate guides.

• Posting office hours of the undergraduate advisors. Other support is provided by the CEAS Undergraduate Office, the Division of Instructional Computing, Telecommunications (telephone services); College of Arts and Sciences Advising Center (general advising, tutoring, and counseling); Research Foundation (grant management); Engineering Library; career Placement; and facilities management (building manager, electrician, and shipping/receiving). 7.3 Summary The institutional support and financial resources are adequate to achieve program goals and assure continuity of the program.

106

8. Program Criteria Curriculum Requirements for the Major in Electrical Engineering The program provides depth and breadth in electrical engineering, as discussed in detail in Section 4, Professional Component. The curriculum begins with a focus on basic mathematics and natural sciences followed by courses that emphasize engineering science and bridging courses that combine engineering science and design. The series of courses culminates with a one-year design experience that integrates various engineering skills and knowledge acquired. The core sequence, technical electives, and additional courses may be chosen in consultation with a faculty advisor, taking into consideration the particular interest of the student. What follows is a list of the electrical engineering curricular topics and the courses that have components in each. Course syllabi are attached in Appendix I-B. 1. Knowledge of Basic Mathematics

o AMS 151 Applied Calculus I o AMS 161 Applied Calculus II o AMS 261 or MAT 203 Applied Calculus III o Note: The following alternate calculus course sequences may be substituted for AMS

151, 161 in major requirements or prerequisites: MAT 125, 126, 127 or MAT 131, 132 or MAT 141, 142

2. Knowledge of Advanced Mathematics

o AMS 361 or MAT 303 Applied Calculus IV (differential equations) o AMS 210 or MAT 211 Linear Algebra

In addition to the above courses on differential equations and linear algebra, knowledge of complex variables and discrete mathematics is provided in many electrical engineering courses as needed. For example, complex numbers are covered in Calculus II, complex impedance is covered in Physics II. In ESE 271, representations of complex numbers in both rectangular and polar forms, Euler's relationship, arithmetic operations with complex numbers, and a concept of complex impedance are reviewed. The AC analysis introduces concepts of phasors and phasor diagrams and includes nodal and mesh circuit analysis with phasors, complex power, power factor and power factor correction, three phase circuits. In ESE 305, complex exponential functions and complex convolution are covered. Based on the course assessment feedback in spring 04, the instructor has expanded the review of complex variables. Topics in discrete mathematics such as Boolean algebra and basic graph theory are covered in ESE 218 and ESE 355.

107

3. Probability, Random Processes, and Statistics

The basics of probability, random processes, and statistics are primarily studied in the course ESE 306, Random Signals and Systems (3 hours). Much of the theory is explained on engineering examples. The students use these concepts or study others in other courses in the curriculum such as in ESE 340 (Basic Communication Theory), ESE 342 (Digital Communication Systems), ESE 346 (Computer Communications), and ESE 362 (Optoelectronic Devices and Optical Imaging Techniques). All the students in the Electrical Engineering program must take ESE 306 to satisfy their graduation requirements.

4. Basic Sciences o PHY 131/133, 132/134 Classical Physics I, II and labs o CHE 198 and CHE 199 Chemistry for Engineers Note: The physics course sequence PHY 125, 126, 127 or 141, 142 is accepted in lieu of PHY 131/133, 132/134. (Students are advised to take PHY 127 before PHY 126.) The chemistry course sequence CHE 131, 132, and 133 or 141, 142, and 143 is accepted in lieu of CHE 198 and 199.

5. Engineering Courses

5.1 Freshman Introduction to Electrical Engineering o ESE 123 Introduction to Electrical and Computer Engineering o ESE 124 Computer Techniques for Electronic Design

5.2 Core Courses o ESE 211 Electronics Lab A o ESE 218 Digital Systems Design o ESE 231 Introduction to Semiconductor Devices o ESE 271 Electrical Circuit Analysis o ESE 305 Deterministic Signals and Systems o ESE 306 Random Signals and Systems o ESE 314 Electronics Laboratory B o ESE 319 Introduction to Electromagnetic Fields and Waves o ESE 324 Electronics Laboratory C o ESE 337 Digital Signal Processing Theory o ESE 372 Electronics o ESE 380 Embedded Microprocessor Systems Design I

108

5.3 Specialization Courses Students must select one of the following three tracks by the end of the sophomore year:

a. General Six ESE technical electives and 2 non-ESE technical electives

b. Microelectronics ESE 304 Applications of Operational Amplifiers ESE 311 Analog Integrated Circuits ESE 330 Integrated Electronics ESE 355 VLSI System Design ESE 373 RF Electronics for Wireless Communications Two ESE technical electives One non-ESE technical elective

c. Telecommunications ESE 340 Basic Communication Theory ESE 342 Digital Communications Systems ESE 346 Computer Communications ESE 347 Digital Signal Processing: Implementation ESE 363 Fiber Optic Communications Two ESE technical electives One non-ESE technical elective

Electrical engineering students can visit the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Light Engineering Building 267, and get a copy of the sample course sequence for each track.

6. Design ESE 440 and 441, Engineering Design I and II Students carry out a major design project during their senior year. This consists of a two-semester course sequence: ESE 440 Engineering Design I and ESE 441 Engineering Design II. At the beginning of each fall semester a list of projects from all the faculty members is posted on a board adjacent to the department’s office as well as on the course website. Students select a project based on their interests, meeting the prerequisites for that project, and the approval of the faculty advisor. Students in the microelectronics or telecommunications tracks must select a project appropriate for those specializations. Normally students work in a group of up to four students. During the fall semester students complete the design phase and in the spring semester, they perform the implementation and testing of their project. A report is required at the end of each semester as well as an oral presentation at the end of the spring semester. In addition, a number of students are selected to present their project during a campus wide event that highlights undergraduate student research under the URECA program.

109

7. Upper-Division Writing Requirement All degree candidates must demonstrate skill in written English at a level acceptable for electrical engineering majors. Students must register for the writing course ESE 300 concurrently with or after completion of ESE 314, 324, 380, or 382 and submit approximately three long reports based on the experiments performed in the course. Students whose writing does not meet the required standard are referred for remedial help. Detailed guidelines are provided by the department. If the standard of writing is judged acceptable, the student receives an S grade for ESE 300, thereby satisfying this requirement.

110

Appendix I. Additional Program Information