Florida State University

Computer Science Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

2009-2010 Outcomes for BS/BA in Computer Science

This page is currently still the only place where you can fin the description of the asessment and evaluation process. For data entry, please refer to the new on-line data acquisition system at http://www.cs.fsu.edu/abet/.

The following outcomes and assessment methods are intended to meet the requirements of Florida's the State-mandated Academic Learning Compacts (SMALCs) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). They are also intended to the requirements of the ABET Computing Accreditation Commission (CAC). These represent the first step of a planned three-year transition from the ABET/CAC criteria under which the program was evaluated in 2007-2009 to the new criteria under which the program is expected to be evaluated in the next ABET/CAC cycle.

The University maintains an "Institutional Effectiveness Portal" (IEP) at IEP, which is a Web-accessible database created to document our assessment processes for various external agencies, including SACS and the Florida Department of Education, and for us also ABET. The terminologies of these various agencies differ. Because our reports must fit into the IEP, we use the IEP terminology. The IEP also imposes some structural constraints on our process.

The following table summarizes the coverage of the required outcomes in the ABET/CAC new criteria (columns) by our own IEP outcome statements. If more than one facutly member is responsible, the one with an asterisk (*) is designated as the coordinator.

Programming Competence

IEP Category: Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to construct computer software solutions for simple programming problems.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics appropriate to the discipline

(c) an ability to design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system, process, component, or program to meet desired needs

(i) an ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for computing practice

(k) an ability to apply design and development principles in the construction of software systems of varying complexity

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed toward the end of the course COP3330, Object-oriented Programming. This course is the second programming course that CS majors are required to take, and thus students should be able to construct solutions to low-complexity programming problems by the end of the course.

Assessment will be based on student performance on an individual programming assignment, in which the student writes a C++ program or implements a C++ class to meet specifications provided by the instructor. The program will be scored by the instructor according to an approved common rubric. The rubric will score several aspects of the student's programming performance, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective", and "highly effective". The rubric will cover the ability to translate the specification to a valid solution, perform input and output, make effective use of a defined set of programming constructs (e.g., primitive data types, subprograms, conditional statements, loops, classes), and use comments to write effective internal documentation.

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "course embedded assignment (often in tandem with exam question bank)", "course report"

Results:

Fall 2009, main campus (Gaitros):

Fall 2009, PC and distance (Lacher):

Spring 2010, main campus (Gaitros):

Actions:

Files:

COP3330 Offerings:

(A) Oral Presentation

IEP Category: Communication Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to formulate and deliver an effective oral presentation on a software design project.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(f) an ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed in the second term of the capstone course sequence CEN4020-CEN4021, Software Engineering 1-2. Students should have had previous instruction and experience with oral presentations in the first half of this sequence, as well as in a prior course that satisfies the University's oral communication competency requirement, such as SPC2000, Public Speaking, or the department's proposed new course CIS4250, Ethics and Social Impact of Computing.

Assessment will be based on an oral presentation given by the student on a course project. The presentation will be scored by a department-approved evaluator (or panel of evaluators), according to an approved common rubric. For on-campus students the presentation will be in class. For distance students, the presentation may be evaluated via an audio-video recording.

The rubric will score several aspects of the student's performance, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective" and "highly effective".

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations, in a course report.

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classifications: "class performance or presentation", "videotaped or audio-taped performance", "course report"

Results:

Fall 2009, COP4020, main campus (Baker):

Fall 2009, COP4020, PC & distance (Gardiner):

Fall 2009, CIS4250, main campus (Chang):

Spring 2010, CEN4021, main campus (Chang):

Actions:

Files for COP4020:

Files for CEN4021:

Files for CIS4250:

CIS4250 Offerings:

CEN4021 Offerings:

(B) Data Structure Knowledge

IEP Category: Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to implement, use, and analyze such basic data structures as linked lists, stacks, queues, and trees in programs.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics appropriate to the discipline (graph theory, big-O notation)

(c) an ability to design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system, process, component, or program to meet desired needs

(i) an ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for computing practice

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed in the 3-hour course COP 4530, Data Structures, Algorithms and Generic Programming.

Assessment will be based on an assignment that involves the implementation of one or more of the above data structures, and analysis of computational complexity of algorithms operating on the data structure(s), as well as empirical measurement of the performance. The assignment will be scored by the instructor according to an approved common rubric. The rubric will score several aspects of the student's performance, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective", and "highly effective". The rubric will cover the ability to implement, use, and analyze the given data structure(s), as well as programming skill.

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "course embedded assignment", "course report"

Results:

Actions:

Files:

COP4530 Offerings:

(C) Recursive Algorithm Use

IEP Category: Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to use and analyze standard recursive algorithmic techniques for the solution of problems in computer science.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics appropriate to the discipline (divide-and-conquer recurrences)

(c) an ability to design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system, process, component, or program to meet desired needs

(i) an ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for computing practice

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed in the 3-hour course COP 4530, Data Structures, Algorithms and Generic Programming.

Assessment will be based on an assignment that involves recursive implementation of a "divide and conquer" algorithm, and analysis of computational complexity of the algorithm. The assignment will be scored by the instructor according to an approved common rubric. The rubric will score several aspects of the student's performance, on the scale of values from "effective", "effective", and "highly effective". The rubric will cover the ability to use recursion effectively, and the ability to analyze the computational complexity of the solution.

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "course embedded assignment", "course report"

Results:

Fall 2009, main campus (Duan): 33 out of 39 students (84%) achieved a rating of "effective" or better ("C-" or better) on the assignment.

Spring 2010, main campus (Srinivasan): 25 out of 25 students (100%) achieved a rating of "effective" or better.

Spring 2010, PC and distance (Lacher): 16 out of 16 students who turned in the assignment achieve a rating of "effective" or better; 6 students did not turn in the assignment, and did not pass the course.

Actions:

Files:

COP4530 Offerings:

(D) Computational Complexity

IEP Category: Critical Thinking Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to analyze the computational complexity of algorithms used in the solution of a programming problem, and evaluate the performance trade-offs of alternative data structures and algorithms.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics appropriate to the discipline (graph theory, big-O notation, recurrences)

(j) 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

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed in the 3-hour course COP 4531, Complexity & Analysis of Data Structures & Algorithms.

Assessment will be based on an assignment that involves the asymptotic complexity analysis and empirical performance measurement of alternate implementations of one or more data structures and/or algorithms, so as to explore trade-offs. The trade-offs may be between execution time and storage space, or between execution times for different operations. The assignment will involve finding an appropriate trade-off for a given class of applications.

The assignment will be scored by the instructor according to an approved common rubric. The rubric will score several aspects of the student's performance, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective", and "highly effective". The rubric will cover the ability to implement, use, analyze, and measure the performance of the given data structure(s), and the ability to analyze trade-offs, as well as programming skill.

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "course embedded assignment", "course report"

Results:

Fall 2009, main campus (Kumar): 6 out of 6 students (100%) achieved a rating of "effective" or better ("C-" or better) on the assignment.

Spring 2010, main campus (Mascagni): 20 out of 23 students (87%) achieved a rating of "effective" or better.

Actions:

Files:

COP4531 Offerings:

(E) Database Knowledge

IEP Category: Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to use a relational database and SQL, including construction of tables, updates, and queries.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics appropriate to the discipline (database, SQL, relational algebra)

(c) an ability to design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system, process, component, or program to meet desired needs

(i) an ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for computing practice

(j) 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 trade-offs involved in design choices (relational algebra)

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed the 3-hour course COP 4710, Theory and Structure of Databases.

Assessment will be based on one or more assignments that involves the design and creation of database tables, the performance of updates, and the formulation of queries using the SQL language.

The assignment will be scored by the instructor according to an approved common rubric. The rubric will score several aspects of the student's performance, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective", and "highly effective". The rubric will cover the ability to design and create tables, the ability to perform updates, and the ability to formulate queries using the SQL language.

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "course embedded assignment", "course report"

Results:

Fall 2009, main campus (Li): 20 out of 22 students who passed the course (91%) achieved a rating of "effective" or better.

Spring 2010, main campus (Schwartz): 19 out of 19 students who passed the course (100%) achieved a rating of "effective" or better.

Actions:

Files:

COP4710 Offerings:

(F) Assembly Language

IEP Category: Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to use an assembly language to write a simple program or subprogram.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(a) an ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics appropriate to the discipline (database, SQL, relational algebra)

(c) an ability to design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system, process, component, or program to meet desired needs;

(i) an ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for computing practice.

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed upon completion of the 3-hour course CDA 3100, Computer Organization I. CDA3100 is the first of the two-course sequence in computer architecture. The course uses assembly language as a vehicle for teaching and testing a student's ability to apply the basic concepts of computer architecture. Knowledge of assembly language is also important as a foundation for understanding higher-level programming languages and how they are implemented. It is also applied, directly, in the programming of compilers, operating systems, and embedded computing applications.

Assessment will be based on an assignment that requires the student to write, test, and debug a simple program or subprogram written in assembly language, using registers and memory, and including at least load, store, conditional jump, integer and floating point arithmetic, and subprogram call and return instructions.

The assignment will be scored by the instructor according to an approved common rubric. The rubric will score several aspects of the student's performance, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective", and "highly effective". The rubric will cover the ability to correctly use registers and memory, and load, store, conditional jump, integer and floating point arithmetic, and subprogram call and return instructions.

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "course embedded assignment", "course report"

Results:

Fall 2009, main campus (Chang): Sixty-seven out of seventy students in the class (96%), or 100% of those who passed the course, achieved a score of effective or higher (70% or higher) on the assignment.

Spring 2010, main campus (Zhang): Thirty out of thirty (100%) of students in the class achieved a score of effective or higher (70% or higher) on the assignment.

Fall 2009, PC and distance (Leach): Eleven out of twelve (92%) of students in the courses achieved a score of effective or higher (70% or higher) on the assignment. The other student failed the course.

Actions:

Files:

CDA3100 Offerings:

(G) Professional Employment/Graduate School

IEP Category: Program Outcome

Outcome:

The program will produce graduates able to qualify for professional employment or admission to graduate school.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping: This is what ABET calls the "educational objective" of our bachelor's degree program.

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

Assessment information for this outcome is gathered from several sources:

1) Graduating seniors are requested to complete an exit survey which includes information on employment or graduate school plans. This data is collected by the departmental undergraduate adviser.

2) The department conducts year-out surveys of those students who provide valid post-graduation contact addresses.

3) The department solicits evaluations of the adequacy of its students' preparation from members of its Industry Advisory Board, and from other employers who visit the campus.

4) The department tracks the progress of those of its own undergraduates who are admitted to its own graduate program.

This information is reviewed each term by the department's chair and its director of undergraduate studies.

The goal is that 80% of those graduating from the program during an academic year are accepted into graduate school or find professional employment, as evidenced by survey results.

IEP assessment method classification: "survey results"

Results:

Starting with the Spring 2010 term, the department has made completion of the survey a formal requirement for graduation, and set it up as an on-line survey, so that results can be tabulated more easily.

The exit survey results for Spring 2010 show that seven of the twenty students taking the survey (35%) reported at the time of the survey (just before graduation) they had found employment for after graduation. In all cases the employment was reported as being related to the degree. All of the remainder expressed confidence that they would be hired in a Computer Science related job. Ten of the twenty (50%) reported that they had plans to go on to graduate school, and eight more indicated that they were thinking about it. This could be interpreted as meaning that 85% (more than our goal of 80%) were accepted into graduate school or found professional employment already at the time of graduation.

We did not conduct a year-out survey this year.

In 2007-2009, our industry advisory board suggested several changes to our curriculum. Those have been implemented, but we do not yet have any feedback on how students coming through the new courses compare to our previous graduates, from the viewpoint of employers. The board met again this year, but did not made any further suggestions regarding the undergraduate curriculum.

The department continues to track the progress of those of its undergraduates who are admitted to its own graduate program. This information is reviewed each term by the department's chair and its director of undergraduate studies. All of the FSU students accepted have made satisfactory progress.

Actions:

Files:

(H) Writing

IEP Category: Communication Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to produce a written technical document, written to professional standards.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(f) an ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed in CEN4020-CEN4021, Software Engineering 1-2, a 6-hour capstone course sequence in which students work as teams on a two-semester long software engineering project. The project involves writing two documents -- a Software Requirements Specification (SRS) and a Software Design Specification (SDS) -- which are based on IEEE standards.

Assessment will be based on evaluation of the SRS or SDS, according to an approved common rubric. The rubric will score several aspects of the student's writing, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective", and "highly effective".

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "written report or essay", "course report"

Results:

Spring 2010, main campus (Chang): The instructor reports that all three teams performed at level 5 (highly effective) on all items of the rubric, for the first two assignments. For the last two reports, teams were reformed, to place the non-performing members in a fourth team. Thereafter, the three teams continued to perform at a highly effective level, and the fourth team did not turn in any work.

Spring 2010, PC and distance (Stoecklin): The instructor reports that seven out of eight (87.5%) of the students achieved a level of effective or higher ("C-" or higher) on the writing assignment.

Actions:

Files:

CEN4021 Offerings:

(I) Teamwork

IEP Category: Communication Skills, Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to function effectively on a team to analyze the requirements for a software systems, and design and create a prototype implementation.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(d) an ability to function effectively on teams to accomplish a common goal.

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed in CEN4020-CEN4021, Software Engineering 1-2, a 6-hour capstone course sequence in which students work as teams on a two-semester long software engineering project.

A common rubric will be used to assess the quality of the student's team participation, as perceived by both team-mates and the instructor. The rubric will score several aspects of the student's writing, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective", and "highly effective".

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "project evaluation", "course report"

Results:

Spring 2010, main campus (Chang): The instructor reported that one of the three teams in the class obtained a score of 40 on the teamwork rubric for the first team assignment, and by the second assignment had only one team member left. The other two teams achieved scores of 70 on the first team assignment, and scores of 100 on the second assignment. He commented that the problem team on the first assignment included one person who failed to attend group meetings, after a few initial meetings. He observed that the successful teams were able to divide and assign work, but did not exhibit much contact or communication, and could not discuss the work of other team members during oral presentations.

Spring 2010, PC and distance (Stoecklin): The instructor reported that eight out of eight students, who functioned as a single team, received a C- or better on their team assignments. This was a distance learning section, so the team members never met in person, instead using Web-based discussion groups and e-mail for communication.

Actions:

Files:

CEN4021 Offerings:

(J)Software Requirements Analysis

IEP Category: Communication Skills, Critical Thinking Skills, Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to analyze and document the requirements for a software system.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(b) an ability to analyze a problem, and identify and define the computing requirements appropriate to its solution

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed in CEN4020-CEN4021, Software Engineering 1-2, a 6-hour capstone course sequence in which students work as teams on a two-semester long software engineering project. The project involves writing a Software Requirements Specification (SRS) based on an IEEE standard.

A common rubric will be used to assess the quality of the student's team SRS. The rubric will score several aspects of the work, including accuracy of the analysis, clarity of expression, and conformance to recommended practices, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective", and "highly effective".

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "project evaluation", "course report"

Results:

CEN4021 Spring 2010, main campus (Chang): All three teams achieved scores of 93% or higher on the requirements analysis rubric for the first draft of the functional requirements document (FDD). However, as reported elsewhere, a single person was doing all the work for one team. The teams were re-formed for the second iteration of the FDD. The teams of serious students earned scores of 100% on the second iteration, and the team of non-performers (drop-outs) earned a score of zero. In fact, the FDD is actually more of design document than a requirements document. Requirements analysis is covered in the prior course, CEN4020.

CEN4021 Spring 2010, PC and distance (Stoecklin): The instructor did not report results on the requirements analysis outcome, because this course is about design, not requirements analysis..

All students in the course CEN4020 are required to complete multiple iterations of a requirements document, in order to pass that course. However, neither instructor reported assessment results for requirements analysis skills in CEN4020 for fall term 2009. This may have been a matter of delayed comprehension of this (new) assessment requirement, which was introduced by the department in the middle of that term.

Actions:

Files:

CEN4021 Offerings:

(K)Software Design

IEP Category: Communication Skills, Critical Thinking Skills, Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to apply design and development principles in the construction of a software systems of significant complexity.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(c) an ability to design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system, process, component, or program to meet desired needs

(k) an ability to apply design and development principles in the construction of software systems of varying complexity

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed in CEN4020-CEN4021, Software Engineering 1-2, a 6-hour capstone course sequence in which students work as teams on a two-semester long software engineering project. The project involves writing and a Software Design Specification (SDS) based on an IEEE standard, and development of a prototype implementation.

A common rubric will be used to assess the quality of the student's team SDS and prototype implementation. The rubric will score several aspects of the work, including quality of the design and completeness of the developed prototype, on the scale of values "ineffective", "effective", and "highly effective".

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each aspect, as well the overall score, will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations.

The goal is that all students passing the course should achieve an overall score of at least "effective".

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "project evaluation", "course report"

Results:

Spring 2010, main campus (Chang): All three of the teams in the course achieved scores of 100% on the first draft of the Software Design Document (SDD). For the second revision, the teams had been re-divided with those members who did not pull their own weight on the first assignment assigned to a fourth team. That team failed to complete the assignment. The other teams earned scores of 70%, 70%, and 95%, all considered "effective" or above. The instructor felt the level of detail was not sufficient, and required a third revision, on which the performing teams earned scores of 97.5%, 100%, and 97.5%, all in the "highly effective range".

Spring 2010, PC and distance (Stoecklin): The instructor reported that seven out of eight students enrolled in the course performed at a level of "C-" (effective) or better on the software design document.

Actions:

Files:

CEN4021 Offerings:

(L)Ethics & Responsibility

IEP Category: Critical Thinking Skills, Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to explain the professional, ethical, legal, security and social issues and responsibilities of a computing professional.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(e) an understanding of professional, ethical, legal, security and social issues and responsibilities

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed initially in COP4710, Theory and Structure of Databases, and CEN4020-CEN4021, Software Engineering 1-2. We plan to assess this in the new course, CIS4250, Ethics and Social Impact of Computing, when that course is implemented for both on-campus and distance students.

Assessment will be by examination questions.

The goal is that all students passing the course should be able to answer at least half of the examination questions on this topic satisfactorily.

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each question will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations, in a course report.

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "instructor constructed exam", "course report"

Results:

COP4710 Fall 2009, main campus (Li): The instructor did not separate the assessment of this outcome from the outcome on Ethics & Responsibility, reporting that all of the thirteen students in the course (100%) demonstrated "an understanding of the social and ethical issues involved in creating and using database systems". Examination of the assignments and exams from the course did not show evidence that this outcome was adequately assessed.

COP4710 Spring 2010, main campus (Schwartz): The instructor reported that fifteen out of nineteen students (79%) achieved a perfect score, and 18 (95%) achieved a score of 70% (C-) or better on the exam question on this topic, which was based on assigned readings in the book "A Gift of Fire" by Sara Baase.

CEN4021 Spring 2010, main campus (Chang): This was assessed via examination questions. All seven of the students who passed the course (out of nine enrolled) achieved a score of 100% on these questions.

CEN4021 Spring 2010, PC and distance (Stoecklin): This outcome was assessed by several quizzes, based on chapters 1-4 of Sara Baase's book "A Gift of Fire". The instructor did not separate this outcome from the "Impact Analysis" outcome, reporting that seven out of eight students (88%) achieved a rating of "effective or higher" (C- or higher) on these quizzes.

CIS4250 Spring 2010, main campus (Chang): This outcome was assessed by examination questions. Sixteen out of twenty students (80%) achieved a rating of effective or higher (score of 75% or higher) on these questions. All of the students achieved a score of 50% or higher on these questions.

Actions:

Files for CEN4021:

Fiels for COP4710:

Files for CIS4250:

Files for CEN4021:

COP4710 Offerings:

CIS4250 Offerings:

(M)Impact Analysis

IEP Category: Critical Thinking Skills, Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will be able to analyze the local and global impact of computing on individuals, organizations, and society.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(g) an ability to analyze the local and global impact of computing on individuals, organizations, and society

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed initially in COP4710, Theory and Structure of Databases, and CEN4020-CEN4021, Software Engineering 1-2. We plan to assess this in the new course, CIS4250, Ethics and Social Impact of Computing, when that course is implemented for both on-campus and distance students.

Assessment in COP4710 and CEN4020-CEN4021 will be by examination questions. In CIS4250, it may be via a written essay, evaluated according to a common rubric.

The goal is that all students passing the course should be able to answer at least half of the examination questions on this topic satisfactorily, or earn a satisfactory score on a written essay.

An anonymous table of the individual scores will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations, in a course report.

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "instructor constructed exam", "written report or essay", "course report"

Results:

COP4710 Fall 2009, main campus (Li): The instructor did not separate the assessment of this outcome from the outcome on Ethics & Responsibility, reporting that all of the thirteen students in the course (100%) demonstrated "an understanding of the social and ethical issues involved in creating and using database systems". Examination of the assignments and exams from the course did not show evidence that this outcome was adequately assessed.

COP4710 Spring 2010, main campus (Schwartz): The instructor reported that thirteen out of nineteen students (70%) achieved a perfect score, 18 (95%) achieved a score of 70% (C-) or better on the exam question on this topic, which was based on assigned readings in the book "A Gift of Fire" by Sara Baase.

CEN4021 Spring 2010, main campus (Chang): This was assessed via examination questions. All seven of the students who passed the course (out of nine enrolled) achieved a score of 100% on these questions.

CEN40201 Spring 2010, PC and distance (Stoecklin): This was assessed via a series of quizzes based on chapters 1-4 for Sara Baase's book "A Gift of Fire". The instructor did not separate this outcome from the "Ethics & Responsibility" outcome, reporting that seven out of eight students (88%) achieved a rating of "effective or higher" (C- or higher) on these quizzes.

CIS4250 Spring 2010, main campus (Chang): This was assessed via examination questions. Thirteen out of 20 students in the class (65%) achieved a score of effective or higher (75% or higher) on these questions. Seventeen (85%) achieved a score of 50% or higher on these questions.

Actions:

Files for CEN4021:

Files for COP4710:

Files for CIS4250:

CEN4021 Offerings:

COP4710 Offerings:

CIS4250 Offerings:

(N)Continuing Professional Development

IEP Category: Content/Discipline Knowledge & Skills

Outcome:

The student will recognize the need for and have an ability to engage in continuing professional development.

ABET/CAC outcome mapping:

(h) recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in continuing professional development

Assessment and Evaluation Process:

This will be assessed initially in CDA3101, Computer Organization 2, Eventually, it will be assessed in the new course, CIS4250, Ethics and Social Impact of Computing. Because computer technology changes very quickly, continuing education is exceptionally important for computing professionals. The rate of technology change is especially apparent if one views the history of computer hardware, covered in CDA3100-CDA3101, and the history of programming languages, covered in COP4020. Since COP4020 is not required of students in the software engineering track, the assessment is done in CDA3101. When CIS4250 is implemented for both on-campus and distance students, the assessment will be moved to that class.

Assessment will be by examination questions.

The goal is that all students passing the course should be able to answer at least half of the examination questions on this topic satisfactorily.

An anonymous table of the individual scores for each question will be reported to the department, along with the instructors own evaluation of the class's performance and recommendations, in a course report.

Once each year, the department's Director of Undergraduate Studies and members of the department's Undergraduate Curriculum Committee will evaluate the reports and data submitted by the instructors, as well as student exit and year-out surveys, and make recommendations to the department.

IEP assessment method classification: "instructor constructed exam", "course report"

Results:

Spring 2010, main campus (Chang): Apparently, the instructor forgot about his responsibility to assess this outcome in the course. No data was reported. The instructor did assess the other outcomes (Oral Presentation, Ethics and Responsibility, and Impact Analysis) associated with that course.

Spring 2010, main campus (Tyson): The instructor reported that 37 out of the 38 students who received a passing grade in the course achieved a store of at least 50% on examinations in the course, and provided an example of one question that he believed addressed this outcome. Apparently, the instructor did not understand the intent of this assessment. He had previously agreed that the segue from the main topic of the course to a discussion of the need for continuing professional development would be the rapid pace of change in computer hardware (and how this means that a person who does not engage in continuing professional development will rapidly find her/his skills are becoming out of date). The instructor felt it was sufficient to assess this learning by an exam question purely on Moore's Law (see file).

Summer A term 2010, PC and distance (Brooks): The instructor used an essay examination to assess this outcome, and all 24 students achieved a score of "effective" or better (12 or more out of 16 pts) on the question.

Actions:

Files:

CIS4250 Offerings:

CDA3101 Offerings: