1

Weber State University Annual Assessment of Evidence of Learning

Cover Page Department/Program: Masters of Science in Computer Engineering Academic Year of Report: 2015/16 Date Submitted: 10/27/2016 Report author: Fon Brown Contact Information: Phone: 801-262-7781 Email: fonbrown@weber.edu

2

A. Brief Introductory Statement:

Please review the Introductory Statement and contact information for your department displayed on the assessment site:

http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if this information is current, please place an ‘X’ below. No further information is

needed. We will indicate “Last Reviewed: [current date]” on the page.

___ Information is current; no changes required.

_X_ Information is not current; updates below.

Update:

The WSU Master of Science in Computer Engineering (MSCE) program provides an avenue for students in Computer Science and Engineering to pursue a graduate degree in a high-demand and growing discipline. Further, it offers professionals in the local work force an opportunity to earn an advanced engineering degree, bolster innovation in the community, and thereby promote economic growth. Finally, for those students who are interested, this program provides the necessary preparation for doctoral programs at other institutions of higher learning. Master of Science in Computer Engineering (MSCE) Website. (link to http://weber.edu/msce) Contact Information: Dr. Fon Brown fonbrown@weber.edu Weber State University 1703 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408-1703 (801) 626-7781

3

B. Mission Statement

Please review the Mission Statement for your department displayed on the assessment site: http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if

it is current, please indicate as much; we will mark the web page as “Last Reviewed [current date]”. No further information is needed.

If the information is not current, please provide an update: ___ Information is current; no changes required.

_X_ Information is not current; updates below.

The mission of the Master of Science Program in Computer Engineering, in adherence to the core themes of the mission of Weber State University, is

to provide students a high quality graduate-level education in Computer Engineering. This education, which emphasizes advanced engineering

principles coupled with hands-on experience, enables students to make significant contributions to society as professional engineers. The program

stresses design and problem solving using math, science and advanced computer engineering principles.

4

C. Student Learning Outcomes Please review the Student Learning Outcomes for your department displayed on the assessment site:

http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if they are current, please indicate as much; we will mark the web page as “Last Reviewed

[current date]”. No further information is needed.

If they are not current, please provide an update: ___ Information is current; no changes required.

_X_ Information is not current; updates below.

Measurable Learning Outcomes

At the end of their study at WSU, students in this program will: 1) Demonstrate the ability to apply knowledge of math, science and engineering. 2) Demonstrate the ability to design a system, component or process. 3) Demonstrate the ability to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems. 4) Demonstrate the ability to apply master’s level knowledge to the specialized area of computer engineering.

5

D. Curriculum

Please review the Curriculum Grid for your department displayed on the assessment site: http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if it

is current, please indicate as much; we will mark the web page as “Last Reviewed: [current data]”. No further information is needed.

If the curriculum grid is not current, please provide an update:

___ Information is current; no changes required.

_X_ Information is not current; updates below

Curriculum Map

Core Courses in Department/Program

Program Learning Outcomes

Lea

rnin

g O

utc

om

e 1

Lea

rnin

g O

utc

om

e 2

Lea

rnin

g O

utc

om

e 3

Lea

rnin

g O

utc

om

e 4

CS 6100 - Distributed Operating Systems H L H L CS 6420 - Advanced Algorithms H L H H CS 6600 - Machine Learning H H H H CS 6610 - Computer Architecture H L H H CS 6820 - Compiler Design H H H H CS 6840 - Formal System Design H H H H CS 6850 - Parallel Programming and Architecture H H H L ECE 6010 - Design Project H H H H ECE 6110 - Digital VLSI Design H H H H ECE 6120 - Advanced VLSI Design H H H H ECE 6130 - Advanced Semiconductor Devices H H H H ECE 6210 - Digital Signal Processing H L H H ECE 6220 - Image Processing H L H H ECE 6410 - Communication Circuits and Systems H H L H ECE 6420 - Digital Communication L H H H ECE 6710 - Real-Time Embedded Systems H H H L

H – Indicates mastery, L – Introduces or elaborates

6

E. Assessment Plan Please review the Assessment Plan for your department displayed on the assessment site: http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if the

plan current, please indicate as much; we will mark the web page as “Last Reviewed [current date]”. No further information is needed.

MSCE Assessment Plan The assessment plan is executed using two types of instruments: 1. Course assessment rubrics. 2. Project defense assessment. These assessment instruments are described below. Course assessment rubrics The course assessment rubric is a direct assessment instrument that articulates the expectations for student performance. The rubric consists of three elements: Dimensions (performance indicators) Scale (levels of performance) of 1, 2, 3 or 4 Descriptors (descriptions of the levels of performance) Each course in the MSCE curriculum grid marked “H” has an associated assessment rubric that measures students’ performance with respect to the 4 student learning outcomes listed in Section C. Through the continuous use of these rubrics, assessment at both the course and program level is an ongoing process that provides a measurable means of program improvement. The course assessment rubric works as follows. At the end of each semester, the instructor scores each performance indicator (PI) for the course. A four-point scale is used. The rubrics are designed with a “trigger point.” If the score of a PI is 1 (unsatisfactory) or 2 (developing), the instructor initiates action to make course level changes with respect to the applicable PI for the course. If the score of a PI is 3 (satisfactory) or 4 (exemplary), no action is taken by the instructor. Then, the mean PI score for each course and section* is transferred to a program level “continuous course improvement” record, a document that summarizes the mean PI scores. This spreadsheet utilizes a trigger point of 2.67 and if a mean PI score falls below the trigger point, the faculty at the program level must make significant changes to the course or the program to remedy the problem. Thus, depending on the trigger points activated, both the instructor and program faculty have input to the continuous improvement process.

7

*ECE 6010 assessment data are recorded in the continuous course improvement record only for the semester in which the student defends. Project Defense Assessment The project defense assessment is a direct assessment instrument that is completed by all faculty attending the final design review (defense) of a student’s project. This instrument assesses the student’s mastery of the program-level learning outcomes listed in Section C. The project defense assessment instrument works as follows: Faculty attending a final design review answer four questions corresponding to the four learning outcomes listed in Section C. Responses from these questions fall into a four-point asymmetrical Likert scale: 4 = strongly agree 3 = agree 2 = mixed, and 1 = disagree. The student’s committee chair calculates the mean response for each question. These responses are recorded in the Project Defense Assessment Report, which the chair submits to the program director. The director computes a graduating cohort average for each of the four questions and enters those averages into the continuous improvement record. If the mean value for any question falls below 2.67, the program faculty must initiate action to address the unsatisfactory learning outcome result(s). Conversely, if all mean values are at or above 2.67, no action is initiated by the faculty.

8

F. Report of assessment results for the most previous academic year:

A. Evidence of Learning: Courses within the Major

2016-2017 is the first full academic year for this program and the first year for which course assessment data will be taken. No course assessment data exists for the previous year.

B. Evidence of Learning: Program

2016-2017 is the first full academic year for this program and there have been no graduates as of yet. Since program learning outcomes are not assessed until at least one student defends his or her project and graduates, no program assessment data currently exists.

9

G. Summary of Artifact Collection Procedure

Artifact When/How Collected? Where Stored? Course Assessment Rubrics

Collected by the director at the end of each semester from those faculty members teaching graduate level courses.

Stored electronically in a Box folder named “MSCE Assessment” under a sub-folder named for the academic year.

Project Defense Assessment Report

Project defense assessments are collected by committee chair from each faculty or other committee member when a student defends his or her project. The committee chair then summarizes the results in a Project Defense Assessment Report and submits it to the director.

Stored electronically in a Box folder named “MSCE Assessment” under a sub-folder named for the academic year.

Continuous Course Improvement Record Compiled by the director each semester from the course assessment rubrics and the project defense assessment reports.

Stored electronically in a Box folder named “MSCE Assessment” under a sub-folder named for the academic year.

Summary Information (as needed)

10

Appendix A Most departments or programs receive a number of recommendations from their Five-Year Program Review processes. This page provides a means of updating progress towards the recommendations the department/program is acting upon.

Date of Program Review: N/A Recommendation Progress Description

Additional narrative: No program reviews have occurred yet.

11

Appendix B Please provide the following information about the full-time and adjunct faculty contracted by your program during the last academic year (summer through spring). Gathering this information each year will help with the headcount reporting that must be done for the final Five Year Program Review document that is shared with the State Board of Regents.

Faculty 2015-16 Headcount 12 With Doctoral Degrees 12 Full-time Tenured 4 Full-time Non-Tenured (includes tenure-track) 8 Part-time and adjunct 0 With Master’s Degrees 0 Full-time Tenured 0 Full-time Non-Tenured 0 Part-time and adjunct 0 With Bachelor’s Degrees 0 Full-time Tenured 0 Full-time Non-tenured 0 Part-time and adjunct 0 Other 0 Full-time Tenured 0 Full-time Non-tenured 0 Part-time 0 Total Headcount Faculty 12 Full-time Tenured 4 Full-time Non-tenured 8 Part-time 0

Note: Faculty are shared between the MSCE program and the undergraduate programs in computer science and electrical engineering. None of the faculty are strictly dedicated to the MSCE program.

12

Please respond to the following questions.

1) Based on your program’s assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take?

2016-2017 is the first full year of operation for this program, and no program or course assessment data exist on which to base action.

2) We are interested in better understanding how departments/programs assess their graduating seniors. Please provide a short narrative describing the practices/curriculum in place for your department/program. Please include both direct and indirect measures employed. A project defense assessment is completed by faculty attending the final design review (defense) of a student’s project. This instrument assesses the student’s mastery of all program-level learning outcomes. The resulting data are then compiled for each graduating class as described in Section E. (The defense typically occurs in a student’s final semester, so this assessment reasonably gauges the program’s effectiveness for the graduating class.) No indirect measures of assessment are employed.