FACULTY COURSE ASSESSMENT REPORT

COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

CSE 135B DSP Design and Lab

For each program indicator below please indicate how it was assessed. For instance, if a particular program outcome is assessed by a test question, please indicate which test question was used, and provide information on the assessment standards for that question individually. For each assessment method, report the average score and the percent of enrolled CSE students who met the performance standards for that outcome. If the program indicator was not taught or not assessed, please include that information.

It is important that the assessment information provided here should only refer to the assessment of CSE students in the class. Students in other majors (i.e. EECS or CS) should not be included in the assessment information provided here.

Academic Term: Winter 2010 Instructor: Lee Swindlehurst

Final course grade distribution:

A / B / C / D / F / P / N/P / I / W / NR / Total
14 / 27 / 7 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 48

Program Outcome a: An ability to apply knowledge of computing, mathematics, science, and engineering appropriate to Computer Science and Engineering.

Indicator 1: An ability to apply knowledge of computing appropriate to Computer Science and Engineering.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
Lab 3M / 84 / 80 / % of students >= 70% grade
DSP Lab 3 / 89 / 74 / “
DSP Lab 4 / 80 / 91 / “
Indicator 2: An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics appropriate to Computer Science and Engineering.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
Lab 1M / 74 / 66 / % of students >= 70% grade
Lab 2M / 77 / 62 / “
Lab 3M / 84 / 80 / “
Lab 4M / 64 / 50 / “
Indicator 3: An ability to apply knowledge of science and engineering appropriate to Computer Science and Engineering.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
DSP Lab 1 / 83 / 91 / % of students >= 70% grade
DSP Lab 3 / 89 / 74 / “
DSP Lab 4 / 80 / 91 / “

Program Outcome b: An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data.

Indicator 1: An ability to design and conduct experiments.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
DSP Lab 3 / 89 / 74 / % of students >= 70% grade
DSP Lab 4 / 80 / 91 / “
Indicator 2: An ability to analyze and interpret experimental data.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
DSP Lab 1 / 83 / 91 / % of students >= 70% grade
DSP Lab 3 / 89 / 74 / “
DSP Lab 4 / 80 / 91 / “

Program Outcome c: An ability to design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system, process, or component to meet desired needs within realistic constraints, such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability constraints.

Indicator 1: An ability to design and implement a computer-based system, process, or component to meet desired needs within realistic constraints.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
Lab 1M / 74 / 66 / % of students >= 70% grade
Lab 2M / 77 / 62 / “
Lab 4M / 64 / 50 / “
DSP Lab 3 / 89 / 74 / “
Indicator 2: An ability to evaluate a computer-based system, process, or component to meet desired needs within realistic constraints.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
Lab 1M / 74 / 66 / % of students >= 70% grade
Lab 2M / 77 / 62 / “
Lab 4M / 64 / 50 / “
DSP Lab 4 / 80 / 91 / “

Program Outcome k: An ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for Computer Science and Engineering.

Indicator 1: An ability to use current computer programming and debugging tools.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
Lab 1M / 74 / 66 / % of students >= 70% grade
DSP Lab 1 / 83 / 91 / “
Lab 3M / 84 / 80 / “
DSP Lab 3 / 89 / 74 / “
Indicator 2: An ability to use simulation tools appropriate for Computer Science and Engineering.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
Lab 1M / 74 / 66 / % of students >= 70% grade
Lab 2M / 77 / 62 / “
Lab 3M / 84 / 80 / “
Lab 4M / 64 / 50 / “

Program Outcome l: An ability to apply mathematical foundations, algorithmic, principles, and computer science theory in the modeling and design of computer-based systems in a way that demonstrates comprehension of the tradeoffs involved in design choices.

Indicator 1: Apply mathematical foundations in the modeling/design of computer-based systems for trade-offs in design choices.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
Lab 1M / 74 / 66 / % of students >= 70% grade
Lab 2M / 77 / 62 / “
Lab 3M / 84 / 80 / “
Lab 4M / 64 / 50 / “
Indicator 2: Apply algorithmic principles modeling/design of computer-based systems for trade-offs in design choices.
Assessment Method / Average Score / Percent Meeting Performance Standards / Performance Standard
Used
DSP Lab 3 / 89 / 74 / % of students >= 70% grade
DSP Lab 4 / 80 / 91 / “

Summary of this quarter’s assessment results:

Even though the results are not as good as last year in terms of meeting the desired outcomes, the shift from purely analytical work to laboratory-based experience was more interesting for the students and they gave positive feedback on the course.

What changes did you make in this course based on previous assessment results?

There were significant changes made to the course this year. We made the course more laboratory-based, using Texas Instruments DSP boards that enabled the students to do real-time data capture, signal processing and output. Based on feedback from both students and employers, we wanted to give the students a more “hands-on” approach to DSP, and I believe it was a success.

What recommendations do you have for improving the course the next time it is taught?

No major modifications planned. We will be tweaking the lab assignments that involve the DSP boards to correct some ambiguities that caused confusion among the students, and modifying some of the required performance metrics. Our expectations of the students’ programming abilities were a bit high, and that is partially why the outcome scores were somewhat lower. We will also be making some minor modifications to better match the students’ programming capabilities.

Any other recommendations or comments?