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

2. Outline Background Assessment Approach Preliminary results Conclusions to date

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

4. Background (continued) Cohort sequence: –Circuits: EE 112, EE 211/241, EE 212/242 Electronics: EE 208/248 –14 units - 11 units lecture, 3 labs Experimental sequence: –EE x220, EE x221, EE x222 –12 units - 4 unit studio per quarter

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

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

7. cohortsx-students

8. Preliminary Results Compared means and standard deviation of grades in junior courses –table summarizes Retention: reviewing grades below C Individual course distribution in junior year courses

10. Preliminary Results - courses Summary of GPA means in 20 courses Experimental students better in 11 Cohort students better in 9 No significant differences observed –exception is DSP course: –experimental 3.25 versus cohort 2.63

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

14. Preliminary Results - Retention Experimental students –55 students started sequence –10 did not continue after EE x220 only 4 did not “pass” with C or better –1 withdrew for coop after EE x221 –4 did not pass after EE x222 –summary: 8/55 did not pass, rest C or better

15. Preliminary Results - Retention Cohort students –Review of 2001-02, 2002-03 sequence courses –321/1972 students with grades below C Summary –Percent students with grades below C –Experimental: 14.2% –Cohort:16.2%

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

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

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