Student Survey Feedback (2000-2005)
To: EECS Faculty
From: Paul Hilfinger and Andy Neureuther
Date: 8 March 2006
Re: Student Survey Feedback (2000-2005)
Our Department relies on a number of self-report sources to provide essential feedback about our undergraduate programs. At least three sources, namely, the College of Engineering Graduating Senior Questionnaire, the Alumni Questionnaire, also administered by the College of Engineering, and the HKN Course Surveys, are essential to our process of ongoing self evaluation. The results of these surveys are invaluable in helping us to determine the extent to which we are meeting our educational objectives, and in the improvement of program outcomes.
Graduating Senior Questionnaire
Each year since 2000, the College of Engineering has administered the Graduating Senior Questionnaire (Exit Survey) to about 150 EECS students and to 450 other College of Engineering students. The questions survey the mandatory ABET Criterion 3 (a-k) outcomes by asking students how well prepared they are, as well as asking about the quality of faculty advising. These questions are rated on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being the highest rating and 1 being the lowest. The questionnaire also asks a few open-ended questions that ask the students to describe their most worthwhile experiences while at Cal; the least worthwhile experiences; whether their over-all experience in the College of Engineering; among others.
As can be observed in the chart below, which is not a trend chart inasmuch as mean scores for each of the questions are discrete, EECS does quite well in preparing students to apply their knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering; to function on multi-disciplinary teams; to engage in life-long learning; and, surprisingly, even to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs.
The x-axis on the above chart refers to the following Exit Survey questions:
| 1. | Based on your experiences at Cal, how well prepared do you feel you are to apply your knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering? |
| 2a. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to design and construct experiments? |
| 2b. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to analyze and interpret data? |
| 3. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to design a system, component or process to meet your desired needs? |
| 4. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to function on multi-disciplinary teams? |
| 5. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to identify, formulate and solve engineering problems? |
| 6a. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to communicate effectively: In writing? |
| 6b. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to communicate effectively: In making oral presentations? |
| 6c. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to communicate effectively: In interpersonal/team communications? |
| 7. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global/societal context? |
| 8. | ..., how well prepared do you feel you are to use the techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice? |
| 9. | ..., do you feel you have an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility? |
| 10. | ..., do you feel you recognize the need to engage in life-long learning? |
| 11. | ..., do you feel you have a knowledge of contemporary issues as they relate to engineering? |
| 12a. | How would you rate: Faculty advising? |
From the hundreds of free-response comments on both the Exit and Alumni Surveys that bear directly upon the outcomes queried above, a few are presented or summarized here to give the general flavor:
- Advising: Varies greatly from advisor to advisor. Advisors are not available and are not interested in my progress or goals. Faculty lack knowledge of courses (no clue). Group advising is better as students can share knowledge.
- Communicate effectively: Thanks to E 190, students feel prepared in writing and interpersonal/team skills, but they are concered about their oral presentation skills. E 190 is generally positively valued in that it helped, but sometimes there is a significant negative split that E 190 is a joke. Alums point out that this course is more relevant to their job than their application and problem solving experience.
- Design and conduct experiments: This is clearly bimodal. Students rave about CS 150, EE 141, and a few other courses. Other students point out that there is not much of this and even that there is no such thing in CS.
- Design with real-world specifications: Students really like CS 150 and are strong on EE 140, EE 141, and EE 192. They also mention EE 123, CS 152, CS 162, CS 164, and CS 184. They feel EECS is design intensive.
- Technical skills and modern tools: Students are quite positive overall. But they point out that we have antiquated labs and outdated CAD tools compared to industry. Alums point out that other schools where they are taking classes have a more up-to-date curriculum.
- Identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems: Students are very self confident about their ability, but they also feel that our program is very theoretical and non 'real-world' practical.
- Interdisciplinary, Ethics, and Social/Global Context: EECS students do not interact much even with other engineering disciplines. There is little discussion of ethics and social issues in EECS classes and students rely on other interactions and H&S classes. Students cite discussions in CS 61A, CS 169, CS 195, E 191, E 195, E 124, and BioE 100.
- Overall: Most (possibly as high as 4/5) students are quite positive about their educational experiences at Cal.
Course Hotspots
Data from the 2003 Exit and Alumni Surveys indicates that some of our courses were in need of overhaul and/or a change in focus:
- EE 122: Too many topics crammed in. Should be split into two courses, one on EE aspects and one on CS aspects.
- EE 20: Teach a greater mathematical depth as in EE 120. Should require Math 54 as a prerequisite. Spend less time on state machines. Make more effort to show relation between topics and applications.
- EE 42: Confusion on relevance to CS. Change focus level. Physical limitations such as old equipment. More preparation for logic design needed. More emphasis on digital systems. More LogicWorks and computer simulations should be required.
- E 190: Expectations from a technical communications class need to be articulated better given the many paper types: journal articles, proposals, design specification, documentation. Wide range of target audiences, for papers and presentations. Teach style, not grammar. More consistency across sections is needed.
HKN Course Surveys
The HKN course surveys have long been a mainstay in our Department for providing feedback to professors and TAs on their teaching effectiveness and the worthwhileness of their graduate and undergraduate course offerings.
To augment the value of the course surveys, the College has decided on an additional systematic assessment process. We are planning to have HKN directly survey the students in every EECS undergraduate course offering on the extent to which the course has achieved its anticipated outcomes. The ABET Criterion 3 (a-k) outcomes will backfill more course-specific outcomes suggested by Course Champions in the process of updating Extended Course Descriptions. This process will begin at the end of the Spring 2006 semester.
COE Exit Surveys from 2000 to 2004
Engineering Alumni Surveys from 2000 to 2004
| Return to | Undergraduate Student Learning Goals |