Jay Wierer, Ph.D.
Associate Professor | Milwaukee School of Engineering
Milwaukee, WI, UNITED STATES
Dr. Jay Wierer's areas of interest include engineering education, standards-based grading, and both music & statistical signal processing.
Education, Licensure and Certification (3)
Ph.D.: Electrical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison 2008
M.S.: Electrical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison 2004
B.S.: Electrical Engineering/Math, University of Wisconsin-Madison 2001
Biography
Dr. Jay Wierer is an associate professor in the Electrical, Computer and Biomedical Engineering department and has been a faculty member at MSOE since 2007. His areas of specialization include analog and digital communications; digital signal processing; statistical signal processing; music signal processing; information theory; optimization; control systems; wireless communications; and engineering education.
Areas of Expertise (8)
Engineering Education
Music Signal Processing
Statistical Signal Processing
Control Systems
Digital Signal Processing
Analog & Digital Communications
Wireless Communications
Optimization
Accomplishments (1)
Outstanding Zone Campus Representative Award
ASEE Zone III, 2017
Affiliations (4)
- American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) : Member
- Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): Senior Member
- American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) : North Midwest Section chair (2022-24)
- New Engineering Educators: division officer (2011-2019)
Selected Publications (7)
Standards-Based Grading for Signals and Systems
2019 ASEE Annual Conference & ExpositionDr. Jay Wierer
2019 Standards-based grading (SBG) is gaining popularity in K-12 education as it measures students’ proficiency on a number of course objectives rather than to give a single grade that does not by itself convey how well the student understands each of the core concepts from the course. Whereas a single grade may be assigned based on the extent to which the student demonstrates proficiency on a number of course objectives, the focus is to give the student, as well as other educators, a more detailed breakdown of the assessment of individual course objectives.
Board 80 : Work in Progress: Do It Early and Do It Often – Engineering Math for First-Term EE Students
ASEE Annual Conference & ExpositionWierer, J., Bonniwell, J.L., Ross, S., Kelnhofer, R.W.
2018 This paper analyzes a first-year introduction to electrical engineering course at (REDACTED). The purpose of the course is three-fold: to introduce new students to the major through a number of engaging laboratory exercises, to introduce new students to other students in their cohort and to electrical engineering faculty at the university, and to reinforce high-school-level mathematics in the context of engineering problems.
Effective Utilization of the Analog Discovery Board Across Upper-Division Electrical Engineering Courses
ASEE Annual Conference & ExpositionHolland, S., Prust, C., Keinhofer, R., Wierer, J.
2016 To date, the electrical engineering education literature has presented the Digilent Analog Discovery board with a focus on usage in lower-level circuits courses and as merely a low-cost replacement for bench-top signal generators and oscilloscopes. This work broadens the domain of the Analog Discovery board beyond introductory courses, and demonstrates its use as a powerful educational tool for junior and senior level coursework. By utilizing its full suite of measurement features, sophisticated laboratory experiments are possible in courses such as electromagnetics, digital signal processing, signals and systems, communication systems, and control systems. In addition, its inherent mobility allows insightful in-class demonstrations and “lab-like” activities to be incorporated into theory-focused courses that otherwise do not have a lab, an impossible feat with traditional anchored, expensive laboratory equipment. In this paper, the unique measurement features of the Analog Discovery that are especially appropriate for upper-level courses are detailed, such as the network analyzer and spectrum analyzer modes. Selected demonstrative lab experiments from upper-division courses at XXXXX are then presented. Emphasis is placed on how these experiments are both enabled by the Analog Discovery board as well as constrained by the performance limits of the board, such as limited frequency response and power supply rails. As a result, careful experiment design is shown to be critical to the classroom success of these projects.
Improving Learning in Continuous-Time Signals and Systems Courses Through Collaborative Workshops
ASEE Annual Conference & ExpositionSimoni, M., Fayyaz, F., Aburdene, M., Labay, V., Huang, W., Wierer, J.
2015 The introductory continuous-time signals and systems (CTSS) course at the host institution suffers from drop/failure rates that are 2-6 times greater than other required electrical and computer engineering courses, which is a typical situation for most programs. We have receivedNSF funding to explore the sources of difficulty in such courses and determine effective methods of helping students to learn the material. A major component of this project is to produce a workshop that communicates pedagogical research results, gathers different perspectives from other schools through focused discussion, and develops a broader community of interested pedagogical researchers. By June, 2015, the workshop will have been offered five times, each time over a different duration from 1.5 hours to 3 days and with a varying audience. This paper describes the contents of the workshop, the experiences of the attendees, and the results of interacting with the various attendees.Regardless of the duration, the workshop is set up to address a series of questions: 1) Why areCTSS courses so difficult for students? 2) What can educators garner from learning theories and experimentation to make CTSS courses more accessible for undergraduate students? 3) How can we exploit conceptual learning theories to improve learning for conceptually difficult courses?4) What approaches were utilized to improve learning? 5) How can participants use what was covered in the workshop to improve their own courses? The answers to the first three questionsare sought by promoting discussion among the attendees through presentation of historical data, analysis of student work samples, review of some relevant conceptual learning theories, and results from research being done to identify student misconceptions and their sources. Question 4is addressed by demonstrating some hands-on application oriented learning activities that are being developed to improve learning in introductory CTSS courses. Finally, to address Question5, the attendees are given an opportunity to review the already developed activities in the context of the discussion that occurred for the first three questions.After the five offerings as of September 2014, the workshop has been attended by approximately35 faculty members from almost as many different universities and two different industry representatives.
Analog and Digital Communications Laboratory Experiments Using Emona TIMS
American Society for Engineering EducationWierer, J., Chandler, E.W.
2011
New Faculty and Navigating the Contract Renewal Process
American Society for Engineering EducationWierer, J., Frankowski, R., Prust, C. and Reyer, S.
2010
Standards-Based Grading for Electric Circuits
2022 ASEE Annual Conference & ExpositionJay Wierer
2023-06-26
The study of electric circuits is a common course (or courses) in most electrical and computer engineering programs. Several ECE courses depend on the fundamentals introduced and hopefully learned in the electric circuits course(s). Because mastery of each of these fundamental concepts is essential for future courses, the use of standards-based grading (SBG) is appealing, as it measures proficiency on an objective-by-objective basis. SBG has been implemented in several fundamental undergraduate engineering courses, including fluid mechanics [2], thermodynamics [3], signals and systems [4, 5], and software verification [6]. In electric circuits, other grading strategies and interventions have been used, such as using team-based learning [7], reflection and metacognition [8], and mastery-based grading [9]. It should be noted that, while SBG and mastery-based grading are quite similar approaches, one major difference in the author’s approach to SBG is that all-or-nothing mastery is not required on any assignment.
Social