Academic Degree Program Assessment

School of Computing and Software Engineering

Use of Results Report

CS - Graduate Transition Certificate Computer Science: 2007 - 2008

1. Please list the Program Outcomes which were met and briefly discuss these.

• Demonstrate and apply their knowledge of mathematical foundations, data structures and simple algorithms to solve problems.
• Describe and explain the major concepts in the core areas of programming, databases, computer organization, and operating systems.
• Demonstrate the ability to learn semi-independently.
• Obtain the skills and knowledge to be employable in entry-level positions that utilize their computing education.

All of the program outcomes for the GTCCS program are listed above, and have been met.  They are measured through the overall EPAN results on the different courses contributing to those outcomes.  When the EPAN summaries are averaged for all the courses, it is clear that the desired threshold (of 2 out of 3) was exceeded for all the above outcomes.

2. If any program outcomes were not met, please list these and discuss these in more detail.

While the following outcomes were met, a concern was indicated by the results on the following outcomes:

• Demonstrate the ability to learn semi-independently.
• Obtain the skills and knowledge to be employable in entry-level positions that utilize their computing education.

On #3, the concern was that when an attempt was made to measure it in CS 5123 – Advanced Programming and Data Structures, the EPAN summary was 1.83, as opposed to the desired 2.0.  When an attempt was made to measure outcome #4 in CS 5123 – Advanced Programming and Data Structures, the EPAN summary was 1.93, as opposed to the desired 2.0.  It should, however, be kept in mind that the average EPAN summary over all courses exceeded the desired threshold of 2.0 (on a 0-3 scale) for these outcomes.

3. Chairs

A. Please discuss how you think that or anticipate that these results might be used.

 

The following suggestions for improvement have been made and will be considered for implementation:

1. W's and F's are not counted in the assessment, because we focus on potential graduates.  However, the FCARs reveal high W and (sometimes F) rates.  A possible improvement would be to add a lab component and turn it into a 4-hour course, because most students do not have good idea about the high workload and intense programming expectations.
2. CS5123 is too crammed with content (see 1). Suggest take this outcome out of that course.
3. Again, a possible improvement would be to add a lab component and turn it into a 4-hour course; this should help the students obtain more skills, and free up some time to emphasize the direct relationships between programming knowledge and employabilty.

 

B. Please note below when you are tentatively planning to discuss these results and the use of these results with your faculty and with others.

 

These results have been discussed at the August 22 meeting and a prioritization is in progress by the respective subcommittees for implementation purposes.  At the next department meeting, scheduled for September 12, this process will be completed and steps for implementation will be taken.

 

It was also agreed that the program objectives and outcomes should be better aligned with ABET definitions.

 

4. Dates of Meetings: Please list below the dates of meetings at which the use of assessment results was discussed and also briefly summarize the discussions and decisions.

In the meeting of August 12, it was decided to call an Assessment Retreat on August 22 to complete the work.  Several subcommittees were formed to cover different programs.  It was also agreed that the Assessment Retreat should be an annual event, generally scheduled on the fourth Friday of each Fall semester, and that FCARs will be due by the second Friday of each semester for the courses taught the previous semester.  (The best time to complete them is perhaps when the grades are submitted to the Registrar.)

 

In the meeting of August 22, four subcommittees met and discussed the various programs as follows:

• Undergraduate CS programs subcommittee
• MSCS subcommittee
• Graduate Certificates in CS subcommittee
• Software Engineering programs subcommittee

 

Each subcommittee studied the FCARs related to the programs it covered, summarized whether each outcome is met or not, and identified a prioritized list of improvements for further discussion and implementation.

The EPAN vector reflects the number of students that passed the course whose proficiency for that outcome was rated Exemplary, Proficient, Apprentice, or Novice.

 

 

Academic Degree Program Assessment (CSE)

Planning and Assessment Homepage