Supplemental Appendices ABET Self-Study Report

Supplemental

Appendices

ABET

Self-Study Report

for the

B.S. in Computer Science

at

Lamar University

Beaumont, Texas

June 30, 2013

CONFIDENTIAL

The information supplied in this Self-Study Report is for the confidential use of ABET

and its authorized agents, and will not be disclosed without authorization of the

institution concerned, except for summary data not identifiable to a specific institution.

2

Table of Contents

Appendix E – Assessment Methodology 2013-2014.......................................................... 3

E.1 – Procedures for Direct Measure of Student Outcomes .......................................... 4

E.2 – Procedures for Indirect Measure of Student Outcomes ...................................... 25

Appendix F – Indirect Measure Assessment Instruments 2013-2014 .............................. 28

F.1 – Form for Student Course and Instructor Evaluations ......................................... 29

F.2 – Form for Exit Interview ...................................................................................... 31

F.3 – Form for Exit Survey .......................................................................................... 37

F.4 – Form for Alumni Survey .................................................................................... 40

Appendix G – Assessment Results & Analysis 2012-2013 .............................................. 44

G.1 – Direct Measure Results and Assessment Analysis 2012-2013 ........................... 45

G.2 – Direct Measure Results Summary: Student Learning Outcomes 2012-2013 ..... 77

G.3 – Indirect Measure Results: Student Evaluation Summary 2012-2013 ................. 79

G.4 – Indirect Measure Results: Exit Interview Summary 2012-2013 ......................... 85

G.5 – Indirect Measure Results: Exit Survey Summary 2012-2013 ............................. 87

G.6 – Indirect Measure Results: Alumni Survey Summary 2010-2011 ....................... 89

G.7 – Indirect Measure Results: Advisory Board Feedback 2012-2013 ...................... 90

G.8 – Indirect Measure Results: ETS Exams 2012-2013 ............................................. 92

Appendix H – Curriculum Map ....................................................................................... 93

Appendix I – Department Programming Documentation Standard ................................ 109

Appendix J – Meeting Minutes 2012-2013 .................................................................... 111

Appendix K – Course Schedules 2012-2013 .................................................................. 137

Appendix L – Advisement by STARS............................................................................ 144

L.1 – Lamar Enrollment Agreement .......................................................................... 144

L.2 – Advising Communication Timeline – Fall Semester ....................................... 146

L.3 – Lamar Retention Programs ............................................................................... 148

L.4 – Tutor Request Form .......................................................................................... 150

3

Appendix E – Assessment Methodology 2013-2014

Sources of Assessment Data

Direct Measures

1. Rubrics and Test Questions for evaluating direct performance criteria

Indirect Measures

1. Student Response Questions on Course Evaluations: administered every semester

2. Exit Interviews of Graduating Seniors: administered every semester in Senior

Seminar (COSC 4172).

3. Exit Surveys of Graduating Seniors: administered every semester in Senior

Seminar (COSC 4172).

4. Alumni Surveys : provided every two years

5. Advisory Board Feedback

6. Standardized ETS Exams: administered to graduating seniors every semester in

Senior Seminar (COSC 4172).

4

E.1 - Procedures for Direct Measure of Student Outcomes

Department of Computer Science, Lamar University

Summer 2013

Criteria Used to Evaluate Rubrics and Test Questions for Direct Measures

The department has decided that instead of using average and STDEV, we will focus

upon the percentage of students who are adequate or better in 2012-2013. The target is at

least 80% of those students who pass a course will meet each performance criterion in

2012-2013. Likewise, the target will be at least 80% for the students in a course to

demonstrate acceptable work on each performance criterion.

Using the feedback from the indirect measures and the results from our direct measures,

the analysis of our assessment findings, actions taken, and recommendations for

improvement are presented at the end of these tables for each Student Outcome. In

addition to the table below with direct measures, we include in our analysis the following

indirect assessment methods: Student Course and Instructor Evaluation, Exit Interview,

Alumni Survey, and ETS Scores.

Note on Tables Below

* Courses contain material relevant to the performance criteria, but are not used in the

assessment strategy at this time.

5

Student Outcome 1 Software Fundamentals

Performance Criteria Strategies Assessment

Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Apply UML

interaction diagrams

and class diagrams to

illustrate object

models.

COSC 1336,

COSC 1337,

COSC 2336,

CPSC 4360

Selected

Questions on

Final Exam

CPSC 4360 Spring and Fall

of each year

Dr. Peggy

Doerschuk or Dr.

Stefan Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Apply important

design patterns to

OOD.

COSC 3308,

CPSC 4360

Selected

Questions on

Final Exam

CPSC4360 Spring and Fall

of each year

Dr. Peggy

Doerschuk or Dr.

Stefan Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Create useful

software architecture

documentation.

COSC 2336,

COSC 3304,

CPSC 3320,

CPSC 4302,

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

Rubric on

software

architecture

documentation

on final project

CPSC 4340 Fall of each

year

Dr. Kami Makki Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Develop correct and

efficient programs.

COSC 1336,

COSC 1337,

COSC 2336,

COSC 3304,

CPSC 3320,

*CPSC 4302,

*CPSC 4340

*CPSC 4360

Selected

Questions on

Assignments

COSC 3304 Spring of each

year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

6

Debug implemented

software in a

proficient manner.

COSC 1336,

COSC 1337,

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3304

Selected

Questions on

Assignments


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Design user interfaces

appropriate to a large

software system.

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

CPSC 3320

CPSC 4360

Rubric CPSC 4360 Fall and Spring

of Each year

Dr. Stefan Andrei

and Dr. Peggy

Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Develop user-level

documentation for

software.

All courses

with

programming

assignments

Rubric CPSC 4360 and

COSC 2336

Fall and Spring

each year

Dr. Andrei or Dr.

Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

7

Student Outcome 2.1 Computer Science Technology Skills – Discrete Mathematics and Structures


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Be able to develop

software to support

specific operations on

frequently used discrete

structures such as lists,

trees, and graphs.

COSC

2336,

COSC

4302, CPSC

3320

Code development

on final exams

COSC 2336 Fall and Spring of

each year

Dr. Stefan Andrei Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was _____.

Be able to use elementary

concepts of

combinatorics,

probability, and statistics

to analyze and evaluate

the efficiency of

algorithms.

COSC 3304 Selected Questions

on Midterm Exam

in COSC 3304


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam Tran Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was _____.

Be able to use concepts of

discrete mathematics,

automata, and finite state

machines to explain the

design of computer

hardware.

COSC

2336,

COSC

2372,

ELEN 3431

COSC 3302

Selected Questions

on Final Exam in

COSC 3302


year

Dr. Hikyoo Koh Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was _____.

8

Student Outcome 2.2 Computer Technology Skills – Analysis and Design of Algorithms


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Demonstrate basic

understanding of

asymptotic notations

and time complexity.

COSC

2336

COSC

3304

Questions from

Midterm Exam


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Design efficient

algorithms and

compare competing

designs.

COSC

2336,

COSC

3304

COSC

4360

Questions from

Midterm Exam


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate basic

understanding of some

design approaches

such as greedy

algorithms, dynamic

programming and

divide-and-conquer.

COSC

2336,

COSC

3304

Questions from

Midterm Exam


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate

familiarity with

standard searching and

sorting algorithms and

linear and non-linear

structures.

COSC

2336

COSC

3304

Questions from

Midterm Exam


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

9

Student Outcome 2.3 Computer Science Technology Skills – Formal Languages and Computability Theory


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Knowledge of

equivalences between

various types of

languages and

corresponding

accepting devices

including Turing

Machines.

COSC

3302

Exam questions COSC 3302 Spring of each

year


Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Knowledge of

practical applicability

of various types of

grammar and of some

standard representation

forms.

COSC

3302


year


Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Knowledge of

limitations of

computational

capability of computer

grammars.

COSC

3308

COSC

3302


year


Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Knowledge of

equivalences and

normal forms of

logical formulas in

propositional logic.

COSC

3308

COSC

3302


year


Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

10

Understanding and

appreciation of the

various essential

programming

languages constructs,

paradigms, evaluation

criteria, and language

implementation issues.

COSC

3308

Exam questions COSC 3308 Fall of each year Dr. Hikyoo Koh Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate basic

knowledge and skills

in programming

techniques with the

focus on concepts and

not on a particular

language.

COSC

3308

Exam questions COSC 3308 Fall of each year Dr. Hikyoo Koh Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

11

Student Outcome 2.4 Computer Science Technology Skills – Operating Systems


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Knows the main

components of an

operating system and

their purposes and

modes of interaction.

COSC

4302

Exam Questions COSC 4302 Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Bo Sun Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Knows the structure

of device drivers and

the interaction

between device

drivers and operating

systems.

COSC

4302


of each year

Dr. Bo Sun Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Outlines the basic

issues in memory

management design

and virtual memory.

COSC

4302


of each year

Dr. Bo Sun Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Can develop basic

system applications

based on operating

system APIs.

COSC

4302

CPSC 3320


of each year

Dr. Bo Sun Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

12

Student Outcome 2.5 Computer Science Technology Skills – Database Design


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Demonstrate the

application of Entity-

Relational diagrams to

model real world

problems.

CPSC 4340 Exam Questions CPSC 4340 Fall of each year Dr. Kami Makki Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Design relations for

real world problems

including

implementation of

normal forms, keys,

and semantics

constraints for each

relation.

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

Exam Questions CPSC 4340 Fall of each year Dr. Kami Makki Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate

competence in

implementations of

database applications.

CPSC 4340 Rubric for final

project

CPSC 4340 Fall of each year Dr. Kami Makki Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

13

Student Outcome 2.6 Computer Science Technology Skills – Computer Networks


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Employ the socket

API to program

applications among

independent hosts.

CPSC 3320 Exam Questions CPSC 3320 Fall of each year Dr. Bo Sun Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Explain common

network architectures,

services provided by

each layer, and

protocols required for

connecting peer

layers.

CPSC 3320 Exam Questions CPSC 3320 Fall of each year Dr. Bo Sun Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Evaluate network

models through

simulation and the use

of common

performance metrics

for networks.

CPSC 3320 Project CPSC 3320 Fall Semester Dr. Bo Sun Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

14

Student Outcome 2.7 Computer Science Technology Skills –Computer Organization and Architecture


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Understands modern

ISA design principles

and employs them to

evaluate systems.

COSC

2372,

ELEN

3431,

COSC

4310

Local Exam

Question

COSC 4310 Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Jiangjiang Liu

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Know how to measure

performance for

different computer

architectures.

COSC

4310

Local Exam

Question


of each year

Dr. Jiangjiang Liu

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate

knowledge of

hardware

implementation of

numbers and

arithmetic operations.

COSC

2372,

COSC

4310

Local Exam

Question


of each year

Dr. Jiangjiang Liu

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

15

Student Outcome 3 Scientific Method**

**Graduates will be able to gather requirements, analyze, design and conduct simulations or other computer experiments in order to

evaluate and interpret the data.


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Be able to justify why selected

research methods were chosen and

state the intended outcomes of the

study.

COSC 2336,

CPSC 3320,

COSC 4310

Rubric and

Project

CPSC 3320

and COSC

4310

Fall and

Spring of each

year

Dr. Jiangjiang

Liu and Dr.

Bo Sun

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Identify steps used in a particular

study.

COSC 2336,

CPSC 3320,

COSC 4310

Rubric and

Project

CPSC 3320

and COSC

4310

Fall and

Spring of each

year

Dr. Jiangjiang

Liu and Dr.

Bo Sun

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Be able to outline and explain the

key features of the adopted method.

COSC 2336,

CPSC 3320,

COSC 4310

Rubric and

Project

CPSC 3320

and COSC

4310

Spring and

Fall of every

year

Dr. Jiangjiang

Liu and Dr.

Bo Sun

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

16

Analyze and interpret collected data

based on the adopted method and

draw appropriate conclusions.

COSC 2336,

CPSC 3320,

COSC 4310

Rubric and

Project

CPSC 3320

and COSC

4310

Fall and

Spring of each

year

Dr. Jiangjiang

Liu and Dr.

Bo Sun

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

17

Student Outcome 4 Societal Awareness**

**Graduates will be aware of and understand the impact of computer technology on society at large, on the workplace environment,

and on individuals.


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Demonstrate understanding of

evolving computer technology

applications.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325

Exam

Questions


year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate knowledge of positive

social impacts including information

globalization, E-Commerce, E-

learning and new job creation.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4340,

CPSC 3320

Exam

Questions


year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate knowledge of negative

social impacts including internet

pornography, privacy violation,

health hazards, computer crimes and

dehumanization.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4340,

CPSC 3320,

ELEN 3431

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325,

CPSC 3320

Spring and

Fall of each

year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei, Dr.

Bo Sun

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate basic understanding of

intellectual property protection via

copyright and patent law and fair use

exception for copyrighted software.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions


year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

18

Student Outcome 5 Ethical Standards**

**Graduates will be able to recognize and understand the importance of ethical standards as well as their own responsibilities with

respect to the computer profession.


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Know the differences of various

philosophical views on ethics such as

deontology, utilitarianism, egoism,

and relativism.

COSC 3325

Exam

Questions


year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Understand the ACM or a similar

professional body’s code of ethics

and principles underlying those

ethics.

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions

CPSC 4360 Fall and

Spring of each

year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei, Dr.

Peggy

Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Honor the property rights of others

including copyrights and patents.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions


year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate ability for ethical

decision making within the computer

profession.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 3320,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions


year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

19

Demonstrate knowledge of factors

affecting fair resolution of conflicts of

interests.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325 Spring each

year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

20

Student Outcome 6 Collaborative Work Skills**

**Graduates will demonstrate the ability to work effectively in teams to conduct technical work through the exercise of interpersonal

communication skills.


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Demonstrate the ability

to work in

heterogeneous

environments which

are diverse in gender,

ethnicity, and academic

accomplishment.

COSC 1172,

CPSC 4360,

CPSC 4340,

COSC 4302

Rubrics CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Andrei, Makki,

Dr. Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Attend team meetings

and contribute towards

solution of technical

problems during the

meetings.

COSC 1172,

CPSC 4360,

CPSC 4340,

COSC 4302

Rubrics CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Andrei, Makki,

Dr. Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Make appropriate

contributions within

their skill set to the

completion of the

project.

COSC 1172,

CPSC 4360,

CPSC 4340,

COSC 4302

Rubrics CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Andrei, Makki,

Dr. Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate a sense of

interdependence with

other team members.

COSC 1172,

CPSC 4360,

CPSC 4340,

COSC 4302

Rubrics CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Andrei, Makki,

Dr. Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

21

Student Outcome 7 Oral Communications**

**Graduates will demonstrate their verbal ability to communicate clearly.

Performance

Criteria

Strategies Assessment

Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Ability to

communicate in a

given situation.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 1172

Rubrics COSC 3325,

COSC 4172

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Stefan Andrei,

Dr. Lawrence

Osborne

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Ability to

comprehend what

is said and to show

an appreciation of

the importance of

listening.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 1172

Rubrics COSC 3325,

COSC 4172

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Stefan Andrei,

Dr. Lawrence

Osborne

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Communicate

clearly at the level

of the audience the

technical material

intrinsic to the

discipline of

computer science.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 1172

Rubrics COSC 3325,

COSC 4172

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Stefan Andrei,

Dr. Lawrence

Osborne

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Demonstrate

knowledge of the

communication

process.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 1172

Rubrics COSC 3325,

COSC 4172

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Stefan Andrei,

Dr. Lawrence

Osborne

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

22

Student Outcome 8 Written Communication Skills**

**Graduates will demonstrate their ability to write effectively both technical and non-technical materials with appropriate multimedia

aids.


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Provide an

introduction that grabs

the attention of

readers.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Organize documents

in terms of a few main

points or themes.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

23

Choose appropriate

illustrations, examples,

or evidence to support

the written documents.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Write appropriately

for specified readers in

terms of technical

content.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics

CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Write organized,

grammatically correct

reports.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

24

Student Outcome 9 Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning**

**Graduates will be demonstrate that they can independently acquire new computing related skills and knowledge in order to pursue

either further formal or informal learning after graduation.


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Be able to search scholarly

publications to assist in

resolving problems.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 4302,

CPSC 4360

Rubrics COSC 3325 and

COSC 4172

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Osborne and

Dr. Andrei

Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Intend to engage in

additional formal education

or participate in employer-

related training or research

projects.

COSC 4172 Rubrics COSC 4172 Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Osborne Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

Independent study.

Participate in Honors

program or in undergraduate

research at Lamar. This

could be done in the

STAIRSTEP Program,

Presentations or Posters at

Professional Conferences,

COOP or Internship

position reports. Student

could own a software design

and development company.


of each year

Dr. Osborne Size =

Percentage =

The target of

80% was

_____.

25

E.2 - Procedures for Indirect Measure of Student Outcomes

Sources of Data for Evaluations for Each Learning Outcome

Assessment Committee Approved Spring 2013

Outcome Course Evaluations

Student

Evaluation

Questions

(Done every

semester)

Exit

Interview

Questions

(Done every

semester by

graduating

seniors)

Exit

Survey

Questions

(Done

every

semester

by

graduating

seniors)

Alumni

Survey

Questions

(Partial

surveys

every two

years)

ETS Scores

1 COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3304

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

27, 28, 29, 31

27-31

27,28,30,31,32,38

27,28,30,31,32

27-32

27,28,30,38

27

25,27,28,30,31

25,27-31

25,27-32

1,2,3,6,12 1,2,3,6,12 Overall Average

Score and 3

Assessment

Indicators

(Programming,

Computer

Organization,

Algorithms and

Theory)

2 15 15 The 3 Assessment

Indicators

(Programming,

Computer

Organization,

Algorithms and

Theory)

2.1 COSC 2336 27,

26

28,29,30,31,40

COSC 3304 27,37,40

COSC 3302 27,39,40

2.2 COSC 3304 27,28,33,34,39,40

2.3 COSC 3302 30,39,40

2.4 COSC 4302 27,28,35,39,40

2.5 CPSC 4340 27,28,39,40

2.6 CPSC 3320 28,30,38,39,40

2.7 COSC 2372 27,31,35,40

COSC 4310 35,38,40

3 COSC 2336

CPSC 3320

COSC 4310

37,38,40

37,38,40

35,37,38,40

3,4,6,7 3,4,6,7 The 3 Assessment

Indicators

(Programming,

Computer

Organization,

Algorithms and

Theory)

4 COSC 1172

COSC 3325

CPSC 4360

41

41

41

5,9 5,9

5 COSC 3325 4136 9 16

9

6 COSC 1172

COSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

25,26

25,26,34,35

25,26,34,35

25,26,34

4,7,8,11,13,14 4,7,8,11,13,14

7 COSC 1172

COSC 3325

CPSC 4360

25,26

34,42

25,26,34

8,13,14 13 8,13,14

8 COSC 1172

COSC 3325

COSC 4302

CPSC 4360

26,34

42

26,34

26,34

8,13,14 12 8,13,14

27

9 COSC 3325

COSC 4172

42

27,34,35,37,40,42

1,10,11 9,11 1,10,11 Overall Average

Score

Note: An Exit Survey is also administered to students in COSC 4172 (Senior Seminar). It is concerned mainly with overall program issues such

as scheduling, cognate courses, advising, and satisfaction with opportunities for independent study.

Criteria for Satisfactory Performance

Course Student Evaluations: average for each course/semester >= 3.75

Exit Interview Form: average for each question/year >= 3.75

Exit Interview Form: average for each of the overall quality questions/year >= 7.5/year

Exit Survey Form: questions 1-18 >= 3.75/year except for question 3 where the goal is between 2.25 and 4.00/year.

Alumni Survey: average on each curriculum question >= 4.0

Alumni Survey: average for each of the overall quality questions/year >= 8.0

ETS questions: Mean on each assessment indicator each semester >= 50.0;

Overall average/semester >= 160 with minimum >= 140.

Other Sources of Indirect Data

1. Input from our Industrial Advisory Board

Criteria Used to Evaluate Indirect Data

If average score >= our target criteria, then performance criteria is met.

If 5 <= sample size < 10, then monitor performance criteria for next two semesters.

If sample size < 5, then the curriculum remains the same, but we will gather data for the next two cycles to produce a larger

sample for analysis.

Criteria is not met.

28

Appendix F – Indirect Measure Assessment Instruments 2013-2014

This appendix includes assessment instruments used for indirect measures. Please note

that Alumni Surveys are only administered every two years. The following instruments

are included:

1. Student Course and Instructor Evaluations

2. Exit Interview

3. Exit Survey

4. Alumni Survey

29

F.1 - Form for Student Evaluations

Undergraduate Online Course

Assessment Form Course Name: ____________ ________________________

Major________________ Date_________________ Course Number _________________

Question Number (University Online Evaluation Question Number: )

Student Assessment of Program Outcomes Note: Not all of the topics listed below are covered in any class. Hence, it does not make sense for all of your answers to be the same. It is perfectly reasonable that some of your answers should be “strongly disagree.” This course provided you

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

1 (25) the opportunity to work effectively as a member of a software development team.

1

2

3

4

5

2 (26) the knowledge to employ effective teamwork and interpersonal communication skills.

1

2

3

4

5

3 (27) the knowledge to analyze a software development problem and design a software solution.

1

2

3

4

5

4 (28) the ability to implement a software design specification in an appropriate development environment.

1

2

3

4

5

5 (29) the ability to apply appropriate user interface design. 1

2

3

4

5

6 (30) the knowledge to design and apply relevant software testing procedures.

1

2

3

4

5

7 (31) instruction on the proper documentation of source code.

1

2

3

4

5

8 (32) the knowledge needed to develop user-level documentation for software.

1

2

3

4

5

9 (33) the ability to independently acquire new computing related skills (e.g. new computing environment, new programming language).

1

2

3

4

5

10 (34) the ability to communicate technical design and implementation concepts to computing professionals as well as to non-computing personnel, both orally and in writing.

1

2

3

4

5

11 (35) the knowledge to evaluate hardware and software in the context of integrating computing into an environment or defining a computing solution to a particular problem or situation.

1

2

3

4

5

12 (36) the knowledge to conduct yourself in an ethical and professional manner and to assume a leadership role in class projects.

1

2

3

4

5

13 (37) the ability to apply knowledge from computer science and other disciplines to solve computer science problems.

1

2

3

4

5

14 (38) the knowledge to design and conduct simulation or other computer experiments and analyze and interpret data.

1

2

3

4

5

15 (39) with a firm theoretical foundation for the subject of the course.

1

2

3

4

5

16 (40) the knowledge to acquire the required skills in the use of the tools and technology of computer science.

1

2

3

4

5

17 (41) the ability to obtain and use information about the local

30

and global impact of the field on relevant societal issues.

1 2 3 4 5

18 (42) with motivation to establish habits of life-long learning and curiosity.

1

2

3

4

5

Student Assessment of Instruction

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly Agree

19 Instructor seemed to have a thorough understanding of subject matter.

1

2

3

4

5

20 Instructor was able to answer student questions effectively.

1

2

3

4

5

21 Instructor made contributions not in assigned material. 1

2

3

4

5

22 Instructor treats all students equally. 1

2

3

4

5

23 Instructor had a reasonable grading system. 1

2

3

4

5

24 Instructor made grading system clear to students. 1

2

3

4

5

25 Instructor was available to students online. 1

2

3

4

5

26 Instructor gave tests that adequately evaluated the understanding of the course material.

1

2

3

4

5

27 Instructor made reasonable assignments. 1

2

3

4

5

28 Instructor returned tests and papers in a reasonable time.

1

2

3

4

5

29 Instructor made the course interesting. 1

2

3

4

5

31 Instructor was able to present concepts so they were understood.

1

2

3

4

5

32 Instructor presented lectures that were carefully planned and were helpful.

1

2

3

4

5

33 Taking this instructor’s course was worthwhile. 1

2

3

4

5

Student Information

34 What grade did you expect to receive in this course? F

D

C

B

A

35 What is your grade range in this course? DF CD BC AB

36 What is the average number of hours per week you spent on this course?

<2

2 to 7

7 to 12

>12

37 If you dropped or do not pass this course, would you consider taking the course from the same instructor again?

No

Yes

38 Would you recommend the instructor to a friend who is considering taking this course?

No

Yes

39 Please assign an overall rating to the instructor based on a scale from F (very poor) to A (excellent).

F

D

C

B

A

Comments Section

Number of Tests given?

Number of assignments assigned?

31

F.2 - Form for Exit Interview

Department of Computer Science

Exit Interview Form

Spring 2013

Date: ___________________________________________________________________

Name:__________________________________________________________________

Permanent Address: _______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Circle your degree program: B.S. in CS B.S. in CIS

If you took the SAT test in high school, what was your total score? _________________

What was the most important reason for your coming to Lamar rather than another

university? ______________________________________________________

(Circle) I have have not found a position yet.

Do you plan to attend graduate school after graduation? _______________

If the answer is “Yes”, what school are you going to attend?

______________________________.

What degree do you plan to pursue in graduate school?

__________________________________________.

If the answer was “No”, do you plan to attend graduate school in the future?

_______________.

If you do eventually go to graduate school, what degree do you intend to pursue?

___________________

If you have found a position, what is the name of the company, and where is the company

located?

________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

If you have found a position, what is your job title? _____________________________

32

If you have found a position, what is the starting salary of your new position? ________

On the average, how many hours per week have you been employed during the time

when you were enrolled in courses during the last two years before graduation? _______

From what high school did you graduate?______________________________________

What year? ______ If outside the local area, what was the city and state? __________

_____________________________________________________________________

How many years have passed since the time you first enrolled at Lamar and the time

when you will be graduating? _______________________________

Questions concerning the Quality of the Program in the Department of Computer

Science

1. On a scale of one to ten (with 10 being good), how do you rate the quality of the courses taken

within the department? 2. On a scale of one to ten, how do you rate the quality of instruction in computer science

courses? 3. On a scale of one to ten (with 10 being easy and 1 being hard), how do you rate the ease of

scheduling courses in computer science? 4. On a scale of one to ten (with 10 being very satisfied and 1 being not satisfied at all), how do

you rate your overall satisfaction with the program you are graduating in?

Department of Computer Science Objectives Strongly Disagree

Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

1. Your education required you to apply critical thinking to solving difficult problems.

1

2

3

4

5

2. Your education ensured that you can design software solutions to different types of problems.

1

2

3

4

5

3. Your education provided a firm theoretical foundation so that you were prepared for future scientific advances.

1

2

3

4

5

4. Your education stimulated an understanding of the role of computer science in interdisciplinary studies, and it increased your interest and abilities in other areas.

1

2

3

4

5

5. Your education fostered an understanding of the impact of the discipline on relevant local and global social issues.

1

2

3

4

5

6. Your education enabled you to develop the ability to analyze and solve computer science problems by applying knowledge from computer science, mathematics, and software engineering.

1

2

3

4

5

7. Your education offered the preparation necessary to design and conduct simulations or other experiments and analyze and interpret data.

1

2

3

4

5

8. Your education developed in you skill in communication and cooperation within workgroups.

1

2

3

4

5

9. Your education fostered an awareness of professional and

33

ethical responsibilities and their application in real situations.

1 2 3 4 5

10. Your education established an understanding of the need for life-long education and curiosity.

1

2

3

4

5

11. Your education in the CS Department occurred in an environment that facilitated and encouraged learning.

1

2

3

4

5

12. Your education enabled you to understand the process of software development including specifications, analysis, design, and testing.

1

2

3

4

5

13. Your education provided a sufficient educational foundation for leadership roles along future career paths.

1

2

3

4

5

14. Your education gave you the ability to recognize and value diversity in the world and in intellectual areas.

1

2

3

4

5

15. Your education gave you a strong background in the fundamental technical areas of computer architecture, algorithms, operating systems, database systems, and formal languages.

1

2

3

4

5

Please give your opinion concerning the strengths of your degree program?

Please give suggestions for improvement to your degree program?

34

Questions Concerning Your Experiences at Lamar

Have you received any awards from the Department, College, or University since you

have been at Lamar? If you have, please list them.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Have you used the services of the Career Center since coming to Lamar? _________

If you have, what help did the Career Center provide?

How many group projects do you think you did in computer science courses? _________

How many presentations did you make in computer science courses? _______________

Did you present any course projects outside the classroom at

Y N

Regional Student Conferences _______ _______

Civic Group (i.e. Chamber of Commerce) _______ _______

Professional Conference sponsored by the ACM or IEEE _______ _______

Annual Lamar Research Conference _______ _______

Other _______ _______

Did you participate regularly in ACM? ________________________________________

What factors caused you to participate or not participate regularly in ACM? __________

________________________________________________________________________

Did you participate in UPE? ________________________________________________

Did you receive any scholarships? If so, what were the sources of the funds?

_______________________________________________________________________

If you received any scholarships, what was the total amount you received over the course

of time that you studied at Lamar? ______________________________________

If you received any scholarships, did the money you receive determine your decision to

come to Lamar and study Computer Science? __________

35

What were your favorite CS/CIS/ELEN courses? _____________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Reasons for selections? ____________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

What were your least favorite CS/CIS/ELEN courses? _________________________

_______________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Who were your favorite CS/CIS/ELEN instructors? ___________________________


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Who were your least favorite CS/CIS/ELEN instructors? ______________________


_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

What were your favorite Math and/or Physics courses? ________________________

Reasons? _______________________________________________________________

What were your least favorite Math and/or Physics courses? ___________________

Reasons? _______________________________________________________________

36

With what companies and for how many semesters did you do an Internship in Computer

Science?

With what companies and for how many semesters did you do a COOP in Computer

Science?

What evidence can you point to that proves your ability to design a system, component,

or process to meet realistic constraints?

What are you most proud of learning at Lamar, and in which experiences or courses did

you learn this skill?

37

F.3 - Form for Exit Survey

Department of Computer Science Exit Survey

2012-2013 Academic Year

The following information is being collected as part of our on-going self-evaluation. This

survey is designed for graduating Computer Science and Computer Information Systems

majors for the purpose of obtaining feedback from students with the goal of improving

our courses and degree programs. Your responses to this survey will remain anonymous.

Results will be analyzed and reported in terms of group statistics and collected

comments. Do not place your name on the form.

Major:

Computer Information Systems [ ] Computer Science [ ]

Approximate overall GPA: ____ Approximate GPA in major: ____

For each statement that follows, please indicate your level of agreement. Space is

provided for your comments that explain or clarify your answer. Use backs of sheets to

continue comments (label by question number). While we are principally interested in the

courses in the major and cognate, you may add comments on other courses at the

university if you wish but please make clear to which courses you are referring.

1. I have learned a great deal in my major.

[ ]Strongly Disagree [ ] Disagree [ ] Not Sure [ ] Agree [ ] Strongly Agree

Comment:

2. I am well prepared for employment in my major.


Comment:

3. The work required for my major was

[ ] Too Easy Easy [ ] Reasonable Difficult Too Difficult

Comment:

4. Faculty are readily available for assistance on course work.


Comment:

5. The quality of teaching in the major is good.


38

Comment: (name courses)

6. The computer labs that support the program are satisfactory for that

purpose.


Comment:

7. Departmental academic advisors were readily available for help and met my

needs.


Comment:

8. Scheduling is easy because of the availability of courses.


Comment:

9. Independent study or research opportunities are satisfactory.


Comment:

10. Classrooms are adequate to support the program.


Comment:

11. I can analyze, design and implement a computerized solution to a “real life”

problem.



12. I can write technical documents such as specifications, design and users’

manuals in a specified format.



13. I can orally present a computerized project.



14. I am prepared to enter an appropriate graduate program.


Comment:

15. I have a good general background in Computer Science.



39

16. I am cognizant of ethical issues and local and global societal concerns

relating to computers in society.


Comment:

17. My math and science courses provided a good background/supplement to my

major.



18. My math and science courses were well taught.



19. What did you like best about the major?

20. What did you like least about the major?

21. What would you recommend to improve the advising system?

40

F.4 - Form for Alumni Survey


Alumni Survey

1. Name Date

(If female, please provide maiden name in addition to married name)

What degree(s) did you earn in the Department of Computer Science at Lamar

University?_______________________________________________

Please give at least one address through which we might best be able to reach you in the

future. For unmarried students, this will probably be the address of your parent(s) or

guardian.

Permanent Home Address:

Present Address :

Phone Number: Email Address:

Year of Graduation: Degree(s) Received from Lamar:

B.S. in Computer Science

B.S. in Computer and Information

Sciences

M.S. in Computer Science

2. If you are employed, please provide the following:

Name of your company:

Your title:

Address of Employer:

41

Salary: Less than $40,000 $80,000 - $100,000

$40,000 - $60,000 $100,000 - $200,000

$60,000 - $80,000 More than $200,000

3. I rate the quality of the courses taken in the CS department as:

Poor Excellent

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4. I rate the quality of instruction in the program as:

Poor Excellent

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. Scheduling of needed courses was:

Very Difficult Reasonable Easy

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6. Overall I am satisfied with the program:

Not at All Somewhat Very

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7. Department of Computer Science Objectives

Strongly Strongly

Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree

1. Your education required you to apply critical thinking to solve

difficult problems.

1 2 3 4 5 2. Your education ensured that you can design software solutions

for a wide range of problems.

1 2 3 4 5 3. Your education provided a firm theoretical foundation so that

you were prepared for future scientific advances.

1 2 3 4 5 4. Your education stimulated an understanding of the role of

computer science in interdisciplinary studies, and it increased

your interest and abilities in other areas.

1 2 3 4 5 5. Your education fostered an understanding the impact of the

discipline on relevant social issues.

1 2 3 4 5 6. Your education enabled you to develop the ability to analyze

and solve computer science problems by applying knowledge

from computer science, mathematics, and software engineering.

1 2 3 4 5 7. Your education offered the preparation necessary to design and

conduct simulations or other experiments and analyze and

interpret data.

1 2 3 4 5 8. Your education developed in you skill in communication and

cooperation within workgroups and larger organizations

1 2 3 4 5 9. Your education fostered an awareness of professional and

ethical responsibilities and their application in real situations.

42

1 2 3 4 5 10. Your education established an understanding of the need for

life-long education and curiosity.

1 2 3 4 5 11. Your education in the CS department occurred in an

environment that facilitated and encouraged learning.

1 2 3 4 5 12. Your education enabled you to understand the process of

software development including specifications, analysis, design,

and testing.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Your education provided a sufficient educational foundation for

leadership roles along future career paths.

1 2 3 4 5 14. Your education gave you the ability to recognize and value

diversity in the world and in intellectual areas.

1 2 3 4 5 15 Your education has prepared you, in your opinion, for

graduate study in Computer Science

1 2 3 4 5 16 You have a deep understanding of one or more sub-areas of

Computer Science.

1 2 3 4 5 17 Your education gave you a strong background in the

fundamental technical areas of computer architecture,

algorithms, operating systems, database systems, and

formal languages.

1 2 3 4 5

Please comment on what you think are the strengths of the CS program:

During your job interviews, did the interviewers offer any comments that suggested areas where

they felt our degree was either especially weak or especially strong? Were there topics they

asked you about with which you were unfamiliar?

10. In what ACM/IEEE activities did you participate?

11. Age at graduation? Married? Gender? Ethnicity?

12. How many children do you have?

43

13. Were you a transfer student?

If so, how many hours transferred toward the degree?

14. Were you a co-op or intern student? How many semesters?

Company Name:

Address:

15. Have you gone to graduate school after leaving Lamar?

If yes, what school(s) did you attend and what degree(s) did you earn?

Please Return Completed Alumni Form to:


Lamar University

P.O. Box 10056

Beaumont, TX 77710

44

Appendix G – Assessment Results & Analysis 2012-2013

This appendix includes results and analysis of assessment for the 2012-2013 academic

year (which includes the fall 2012 and spring 2013 long semesters). The following are

included:

1. Direct Measure Results and Assessment Analysis 2012-2013

2. Direct Measure Results Summary: Student Learning Outcomes 2012-2013

3. Indirect Measure: Student Course and Instructor Evaluation Summary 2012-2013

4. Indirect Measure: Exit Interview Summary 2012-2013

5. Indirect Measure: Exit Survey Summary 2012-2013

6. Indirect Measure: Alumni Survey Summary 2010-2011

7. Indirect Measure: Advisory Board Feedback 2012-2013

8. ETS Exams 2012-2013

45

G.1 – Direct Measure Results and Assessment Analysis 2012-2013

Department of Computer Science, Lamar University

Summer 2013

Using the feedback from the indirect measures specified in Appendices E.1 and the results from our direct measures, the analysis of

our assessment findings, actions taken, and recommendations for improvement are presented in this document. Note that the selected

questions used on final examinations for each performance criterion are submitted by the faculty and approved by the departmental

Assessment Committee to ensure adequate appropriate depth and consistency of content across time.

Assessment and Evaluation

Student Outcome 1 Software Fundamentals

Indirect Assessment Methods: Student Course and Instructor Evaluation, Exit Interview, Alumni Survey, ETS Scores


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Apply UML

interaction diagrams

and class diagrams to

illustrate object

models.

COSC 1336,

COSC 1337,

COSC 2336,

CPSC 4360

Selected

Questions on

Final Exam

CPSC 4360 Spring and Fall

of each year

Dr. Peggy

Doerschuk

or

Dr. Stefan Andrei

Size = 20

Percentage =

83.45

The target of

80% was Met

Apply important

design patterns to

OOD.

COSC 3308,

CPSC 4360

Selected

Questions on

Final Exam

CPSC4360 Spring and Fall

of each year

Dr. Peggy

Doerschuk

or

Size = 20

Percentage =

83.45

46

Dr. Stefan Andrei The target of

80% was Met

Create useful

software architecture

documentation.

COSC 2336,

COSC 3304,

CPSC 3320,

CPSC 4302,

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

Rubric on

software

architecture

documentation

on final project

CPSC 4340 Fall of each

year

Dr. Kami Makki Size = 6

Percentage =

100

The target of

80% was Met

Develop correct and

efficient programs.

COSC 1336,

COSC 1337,

COSC 2336,

COSC 3304,

CPSC 3320,

*CPSC 4302,

*CPSC 4340

*CPSC 4360

Selected

Questions on

Assignments


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size = 12

Percentage =

91

The target of

80% was Met

Debug implemented

software in a

proficient manner.

COSC 1336,

COSC 1337,

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3304

Selected

Questions on

Assignments


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size = 12

Percentage =

100

The target of

80% was Met

Design user

interfaces appropriate

to a large software

system.

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

CPSC 3320

CPSC 4360

Rubric CPSC 4360 Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Stefan Andrei

and

Dr. Peggy

Doerschuk

Size = 19

Percentage =

97.26

The target of

80% was Met

47

Develop user-level

documentation for

software.

All courses

with

programming

assignments

Rubric CPSC 4360 and

COSC 2336

Fall and Spring

of each year

Dr. Doerschuk

or Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Dr. Makki

Size = 32

Percentage =

92.19

The target of

80% was Met

* Courses contain material relevant to the performance criteria, but are not used in the assessment strategy at this time.

Date: June 14, 2013.

Results: The sample size was between 12 and 21 for all performance criteria except criteria 3 in which the sample size was 6. This

was better than last year when the sample size was about half. The direct results met our targets this year (83%, 83%, 100%, 91%,

100%, 97%, 92%) which was an improvement over last year since criteria 1 was not met last year (79%). Four out of seven criteria

had a higher rating this year as compared to last year with 3 being slightly lower. Overall, this was an improvement compared to last

year.

Actions: By criterion:

1.3 – Since we did not meet the student evaluation targets (indirect data) we will bring this to the attention of the instructor and

monitor this.

1.4 and 1.5 – Indirect results are mixed and therefore is inconclusive overall. No actions. We need more participation from students

in the course and instructor evaluation process. We have informed some faculty and will inform others about how to attain

higher response rates, particularly those faculty whose indirect data did not meet targets.

Second Cycle Results: Since we met the direct and indirect targets, it appears that adding the departmental code documentation

standards has helped.

48

Student Outcome 2.1 Computer Science Technology Skills – Discrete Mathematics and Structures



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Be able to develop

software to support

specific operations on

frequently used

discrete structures

such as lists, trees, and

graphs.

COSC 2336,

COSC 4302,

CPSC 3320

Code

development on

final exams

COSC 2336 Fall and Spring of

each year


Percentage = 82

The target of

80% was Met

Be able to use

elementary concepts

of combinatorics,

probability, and

statistics to analyze

and evaluate the

efficiency of

algorithms.

COSC 3304 Selected

Questions on

Midterm Exam in

COSC 3304


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam Tran Size = 12

Percentage = 83

The target of

80% was Met

Be able to use

concepts of discrete

mathematics,

automata, and finite

state machines to

explain the design of

computer hardware.

COSC 2336,

COSC 2372,

ELEN 3431

COSC 3302

Selected

Questions on

Final Exam in

COSC 3302


year

Dr. Hikyoo Koh Size = 7

Percentage =

100

The target of

80% was Met

49


Results: The last two years we did not fully meet all measure targets. This year we met all targets. This is the first time in three

years we met all targets for both direct and indirect measures.

Actions: None.

Second Cycle Results: We added a Discrete Math course as a prerequisite for the COSC 3304 Algorithms course.

50

Student Outcome 2.2 Computer Technology Skills – Analysis and Design of Algorithms



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Demonstrate basic

understanding of

asymptotic notations and

time complexity.

COSC 2336

COSC 3304

Questions

from

Midterm

Exam


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size = 12

Percentage =

83

The target of

80% was Met

Design efficient

algorithms and compare

competing designs.

COSC

2336, COSC

3304

COSC 4360

Questions

from

Midterm

Exam


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size = 12

Percentage =

83

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate basic

understanding of some

design approaches such as

greedy algorithms,

dynamic programming

and divide-and-conquer.

COSC 2336,

COSC 3304

Questions

from

Midterm

Exam


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size =12

Percentage =

83

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate familiarity

with standard searching

and sorting algorithms and

linear and non-linear

structures.

COSC 2336

COSC 3304

Questions

from

Midterm

Exam


year

Dr. Quoc-Nam

Tran

Size = 12

Percentage =

83

The target of

80% was Met

51


Results: We met the targets for indirect measures criteria on the Exit Interviews and Exit Summary. Last year these targets were not

all met. We noted from their responses on the course and instructor evaluations that students felt felt they did not have a firm

theoretical understanding of algorithms.

Actions: Starting next year, we will discuss with prospective instructors for COSC 3304 (Algorithms course) successful methods for

teaching analysis of algorithms. The goal will be to see better results on the student course and instructor evaluations in regard to the

question of whether or not students feel they have a firm theoretical understanding of algorithms.

Second Cycle Results: None.

52

Student Outcome 2.3 Computer Science Technology Skills – Formal Languages and Computability Theory



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Demonstrate basic knowledge

of equivalences between

various types of languages and

corresponding accepting

devices including Turing

Machines.

COSC 3302 Exam

questions

COSC 3302 Spring of every

year


Percentage =

100

The target of

80% was Met


of practical applicability of

various types of grammar and

of some standard

representation forms.

COSC 3302 Exam

questions


year


Percentage =

100

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate knowledge of

limitations of computational

capability of computer

grammars.

COSC 3308

COSC 3302

Exam

questions


year


Percentage =

86

The target of

80% was Met


of equivalences and normal

forms of logical formulas in

propositional logic.

COSC 3308

COSC 3302

Exam

questions


year


Percentage =

100

The target of

80% was Met

53

Demonstrate basic

understanding and appreciation

of the various essential

programming languages

constructs, paradigms,

evaluation criteria, and

language implementation

issues.

COSC 3308 Exam

questions

COSC 3308 Fall of every year Dr. Andrei Size = 10

Percentage =

90

The target of

80% was Met


and skills in programming

techniques with the focus on

concepts and not on a

particular language.

COSC 3308 Exam

questions

COSC 3308 Fall of every year Dr. Andrei Size = 10

Percentage =

90

The target of

80% was Met


Results: We met all targets for direct and indirect measures for these 6 performance criteria. This is an improvement from last year.

The performance targets for the 6 criteria were met for direct measure with a sample size was of 7 for year 2012-2013. Also, we have

a similar result for last year. The performance targets of this outcome also have been met for indirect measures, with the sample size

of 4 for year 2012-2013. Note that for 2011-2012 student course and instructor evaluations were not used to assess Outcome 2.3.

Actions: None.

Second Cycle Results: The instructor wanted to make sure that knowledge of the limitations of computational capability of computer

grammars was to be covered in the class (see last year’s Actions), and this year the instructor successfully incorporated that material

into the curriculum for COSC 3302.

54

Student Outcome 2.4 Computer Science Technology Skills – Operating Systems



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Knows the main components of

an operating system and their

purposes and modes of

interaction.

COSC

4302

Exam

Questions

COSC 4302 Fall and

Spring of

every year

Dr. Bo Sun

Size = 15

Percentage =

86.80

The target of

80% was Met

Knows the structure of device

drivers and the interaction

between device drivers and

operating systems.

COSC

4302

Exam

Questions

COSC 4302 Fall and

Spring of

every year

Dr. Bo Sun Size = 15

Percentage =

86.80

The target of

80% was Met

Outlines the basic issues in

memory management design and

virtual memory.

COSC

4302

Exam

Questions

COSC 4302 Fall and

Spring of

every year


Percentage =

86.80

The target of

80% was Met

Can develop basic system

applications based on operating

system APIs.

COSC

4302

CPSC 3320

Exam

Questions

COSC 4302 Fall and

Spring of

every year


Percentage =

86.80

The target of

80% was Met

55


Results: The performance targets for these 4 criteria were met for the direct measure, with a sample size of 15 for year 2012-2013.

We had similar results last year with a sample size of 11. The performance targets of this outcome also have been met for the indirect

measure, with a sample size of 44 for year 2012-2013. Note that for 2011-2012 student course and instructor evaluations were not

used to assess Outcome 2.4.

Actions: None.


56

Student Outcome 2.5 Computer Science Technology Skills – Database Design



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Demonstrate the

application of Entity-

Relational diagrams to

model real world

problems.

CPSC 4340 Exam Questions CPSC 4340 Fall of every

year


Percentage =

83

The target of

80% was Met

Design relations for

real world problems

including

implementation of

normal forms, keys,

and semantics

constraints for each

relation.

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

Exam Questions CPSC 4340 Fall of every

year


Percentage =

83

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate

competence in

implementations of

database applications.

CPSC 4340 Rubric for final

project

CPSC 4340 Fall of every

year


Percentage =

100

The target of

80% was Met


Results: The performance targets for these 3 criteria were met for direct measure, with a sample size of 6 for year 2012-2013. In

2011-2012, criterion 2 was not met, with a sample size of 4. However, the performance targets of this outcome have not been met for

57

indirect measure, with a sample size 6 of for year 2012-2013. Note that for 2011-2012 student course and instructor evaluations were

not used to assess Outcome 2.

The Exit Interview result was 3.75 with a sample size of 8 for Outcome 2, which showed that this Outcome has been met (Question

15). For 2011-2012, the result was 4.50 with a sample size of 8.

The Alumni Survey result was 4.17 with a sample size of 9 for Outcome 2, which showed that this Outcome has been met (Question

15). For 2011-2012, the result was 4.17 with a sample size of 6.

Actions: Since direct measure targets were met for these performance criteria and the sample size was small, no actions will be taken

other than to notify the instructor of results of the student course and instructor evaluations (since evaluations did not meet targets for

indirect measures).


58

Student Outcome 2.6 Computer Science Technology Skills – Computer Networks



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Employ the socket API to program

applications among independent

hosts.

CPSC 3320 Exam

Questions


year


Percentage =

83

The target of

80% was Met

Explain common network

architectures, the services provided

by each layer, and the protocols

required for connecting peer

layers.

CPSC 3320 Exam

Questions


year


Percentage =

83

The target of

80% was Met

Evaluate network models through

simulation and the use of common

performance metrics for networks.

CPSC 3320 Project CPSC 3320 Fall of every

year


Percentage =

83

The target of

80% was Met


Results: The results in Student Outcome 2.6 are all satisfactory in 2012-2013. In 2011-2012, performance criterion 2 was not met

with the percentage of 66.67% and sample size of six students. The department made improvement on performance criterion 2 with

the percentage of 83.00% and sample size of 18 students.

59

Actions: None.

Second Cycle Results: The instructor responded favorably to our recommendation about devoting more course time and attention to

criteria 2.

60

Student Outcome 2.7 Computer Science Technology Skills –Computer Organization and Architecture



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Understands modern ISA design

principles and employs them to

evaluate systems.

COSC 2372,

ELEN 3431,

COSC 4310

Local Exam

Question


of every year

Dr.

Jiangjiang

Liu

Size = 8

Percentage =

88

The target of

80% was Met

Know how to measure performance

for different computer architectures.

COSC 4310 Local Exam

Question


of every year

Dr.

Jiangjiang

Liu

Size = 8

Percentage =

50

The target of

80% was

Not Met

Demonstrate knowledge of hardware

implementation of numbers and

arithmetic operations.

COSC 2372,

COSC 4310

Local Exam

Question


of every year

Dr.

Jiangjiang

Liu

Size = 8

Percentage =

88

The target of

80% was Met


Results: The results in Student Outcome 2.7 were all satisfactory except direct measure performance criterion 2, in 2012-2013.

Performance criterion 2 is not met with the percentage of 50% and a sample size of 8 students in 2012-2013. In 2011-2012,

performance criterion 2 was met with the percentage of 100% and a sample size of 9students. Final exam questions were used to

61

assess performance criterion. The department will monitor performance criterion 2, and the instructor will give more attention to this

area.

Actions: None.


62

Student Outcome 3 Scientific Method**

**Graduates will be able to gather requirements, analyze, design and conduct simulations or other computer experiments in order to

evaluate and interpret the data.



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Be able to justify why selected

research methods were chosen and

state the intended outcomes of the

study.

COSC 2336,

CPSC 3320,

COSC 4310

Rubric and

Project

CPSC 3320

and COSC

4310

Fall and

Spring of

every year

Dr. Jiangjiang

Liu and Dr.

Bo Sun

Size = 26

Percentage =

91.69

The target of

80% was Met

Identify steps used in a particular

study.

COSC 2336,

CPSC 3320,

COSC 4310

Rubric and

Project

CPSC 3320

and COSC

4310

Fall and

Spring of

every year

Dr. Jiangjiang

Liu and Dr.

Bo Sun

Size = 26

Percentage =

91.69

The target of

80% was Met

Be able to outline and explain the

key features of the adopted method.

COSC 2336,

CPSC 3320,

COSC 4310

Rubric and

Project

CPSC 3320

and COSC

4310

Fall and

Spring of

every year

Dr. Jiangjiang

Liu and Dr.

Bo Sun

Size = 26

Percentage =

91.69

The target of

80% was Met

63

Analyze and interpret collected data

based on the adopted method and

draw appropriate conclusions.

COSC 2336,

CPSC 3320,

COSC 4310

Rubric and

Project

CPSC 3320

and COSC

4310

Fall and

Spring of

every year

Dr. Jiangjiang

Liu and Dr.

Bo Sun

Size = 26

Percentage =

91.69

The target of

80% was Met


Results: The results in Student Outcome 3 are all satisfactory except for some indirect measures from the Student Course and

Instructor Evaluation results in 2012-2013. The department made improvement in CPSC 3320. The targets of the Student Course and

Instructor Evaluation were not met for CPSC 3320 in 2011-2012 and are all met in 2012-2013. The cumulative averages were 3.33

out of 5.00 points for question 37, 3.67 for question 38, and 3.67 for question 40 with the sample size of six students in 2011-2012. In

2012-2013, the cumulative averages are 4.17 for question 37, 4.22 for question 38, and 4.00 for question 40 with the sample size of 23

students.

The department also made improvement in COSC 4310. The target for question 38 of the Student Course and Instructor Evaluation

was not met with the average of 3.50 for COSC 4310 in 2011-2012 and is met with the average of 3.86 in 2012-2013. The sample

size was 8 for both years. The results for questions 35 and 38 of the Student Course and Instructor Evaluation are also improved. The

cumulative averages were 3.25 for question 35 and 3.38 for question 37 in 2011-2012. In 2012-2013, the cumulative averages are

very close to our target 3.75 with 3.71 for question 35 and 3.43 for question 37.

The targets for the Student Course and Instructor Evaluation for COSC 3308 were all met with the average of 4.09 for questions 38

and 39 in 2011-2012. The targets were not met with the average of 3.55 for questions 38 and 39 in 2012-2013. However, the

cumulative averages are very close to our target 3.75.

Actions: None.


64

Student Outcome 4 Societal Awareness**

**Graduates will be aware of and understand the impact of computer technology on society at large, on the workplace environment,

and on individuals.



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Demonstrate understanding of

evolving computer technology

applications.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325 Spring of

every year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size = 17

Percentage =

89

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate knowledge of positive

social impacts including information

globalization, E-Commerce, E-

learning and new job creation.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4340,

CPSC 3320

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325 Spring of

every year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size = 17

Percentage =

89

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate knowledge of negative

social impacts including internet

pornography, privacy violation,

health hazards, computer crimes and

dehumanization.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4340,

CPSC 3320,

ELEN 3431

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325,

CPSC 3320

Fall and

Spring of

every year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei, Dr.

Bo Sun

Size = 21

Percentage =

91.90

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate basic understanding of

intellectual property protection via

copyright and patent law and fair use

exception for copyrighted software.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325 Spring of

every year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size = 17

Percentage =

93

The target of

80% was Met

65


Results: The sample size is 17, which is comparable with last year, and the direct results met our targets in all of the performance

criteria of the student outcome 4 (89%, 89%, 91.9%, 93%). Analyzing question 41 (“Obtain Info./Local & Global impact-societal

issues”) from the Student Course and Instructor Evaluation, the target has been met for COSC 3325 and CPSC 4360 with 4 out of 5

and 4.25 out of 5. However, the target has not been met for COSC 1172 as the average was only 3.43 instead of minimum of 3.75.

As for the Exit Interview, questions 5 (“Your education fostered an understanding of the impact of the discipline on relevant local and

global social issues”) and 9 (“Your education fostered an awareness of professional and ethical responsibilities and their application

in real situations”) were both met in 2012-2013 with an average of 4.12 and 3.75, respectively (comparable with 2011-2012 academic

year).

There is no question for the Exit Survey which reflects this student outcome. As for Alumni Survey, question 9 (“Your education

fostered an awareness of professional and ethical responsibilities and their application in real situations”) were met in 2012-2013

with an average of 4.11 out of 5, respectively (comparable with 2011-2012 academic year). However, question 5 (“Your education

fostered an understanding of the history of computer science and the impact of the discipline on relevant social issues”) did not met

the target as it had an average of only 3.89, below our goal of 4.

We met targets for both direct and indirect measures this year.

Actions: None.


66

Student Outcome 5 Ethical Standards**

**Graduates will be able to recognize and understand the importance of ethical standards as well as their own responsibilities with

respect to the computer profession.



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Know the differences of various

philosophical views on ethics such as

deontology, utilitarianism, egoism,

and relativism.

COSC 3325

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325 Spring of

every year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size = 17

Percentage =

92

The target of

80% was Met

Understand the ACM or a similar

professional body’s code of ethics

and principles underlying those

ethics.

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions

CPSC 4360 Fall and

Spring of

every year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei, Dr.

Peggy

Doerschuk

Size = 20

Percentage =

87

The target of

80% was Met

Honor the property rights of others

including copyrights and patents.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325 Spring of

every year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size = 17

Percentage =

82

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate ability for ethical

decision making within the computer

profession.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 3320,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325 Spring of

every year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size = 17

Percentage =

85

The target of

80% was Met

67

Demonstrate knowledge of factors

affecting fair resolution of conflicts of

interests.

COSC 1172,

COSC 3325,

CPSC 4360

Exam

Questions

COSC 3325 Spring of

every year

Dr. Stefan

Andrei

Size = 17

Percentage =

89

The target of

80% was Met


Results: This is the fourth consecutive year in which both the direct measures, the Student Course and Instructor Evaluations, the Exit

Interview question 9 (“Your education fostered an awareness of professional and ethical responsibilities and their application in real

situations”), the Exit Survey question 16 (“I am cognizant of ethical issues and local and global societal concerns relating to

computers in society”) were consistent in achieving their targets.

As for Alumni Survey, question 9 (“Your education fostered an awareness of professional and ethical responsibilities and their

application in real situations”) was met in 2012-2013 with an average of 4.11 out of 5, respectively (comparable with 2011-2012

academic year).

Actions: None.


68

Student Outcome 6 Collaborative Work Skills**

**Graduates will demonstrate the ability to work effectively in teams to conduct technical work through the exercise of interpersonal

communication skills.



Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Ability to work in

heterogeneous

environments which

are diverse in gender,

ethnicity, and academic

accomplishment.

COSC 1172,

CPSC 4360,

CPSC 4340,

COSC 4302

Rubrics CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Andrei, Makki,

Dr. Doerschuk

Size = 27

Percentage =

98.07

The target of

80% was Met

Attend team meetings

and contribute towards

solution of technical

problems during the

meetings.

COSC 1172,

CPSC 4360,

CPSC 4340,

COSC 4302

Rubrics CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Andrei, Makki,

Dr. Doerschuk

Size = 26

Percentage =

94.77

The target of

80% was Met

Make appropriate

contributions within

their skill set to the

completion of the

project.

COSC 1172,

CPSC 4360,

CPSC 4340,

COSC 4302

Rubrics CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Andrei, Makki,

Dr. Doerschuk

Size = 26

Percentage =

98

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate a sense of

interdependence with

other team members.

COSC 1172,

CPSC 4360,

CPSC 4340,

COSC 4302

Rubrics CPSC 4340,

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Andrei, Makki,

Dr. Doerschuk

Size = 27

Percentage =

98.07

The target of

80% was Met

69


Results: All targets are met of direct measures with high scores on all of the criteria. The sample size of 26 was much higher than last

year’s sample size of 7. However, the student evaluation scores from CPSC 4340 showed that the students did not feel they

understood how to collaborate in teams. This is an improvement from last year in the sense that the indirect measures for COSC 4302

student evaluations matched the direct measures.

CPSC 4340 showed a flat 3.00 for all questions 25, 26, 34, and 35. Also, CPSC 4340 had a small sample size of 6.

The Exit Interview scores matched the expectations for all questions (4, 7, 11, 13, and 14), except number 8 (“Your education

developed in you skill in communication and cooperation within workgroups”) which got 3.63 close to the target of 3.75. The

Assessment Committee agreed to remove the words “and larger organizations” from the question as it is not what we intended to

measure.

The Alumni Survey scores matched the expectations for all questions (4, 7, 8, 11, and 14), except number 13 (“Your education

provided a sufficient educational foundation for leadership roles along future career paths.”) which attained 3.89—close to the target

of 4.0.

Actions: None.

Second Cycle Results: On direct measures, the performance has met targets since 2007-2008. No actions were taken last year. Thus,

there are no second cycle results to report.

70

Student Outcome 7 Oral Communications**

**Graduates will demonstrate their ability to verbally communicate clearly.


Performance

Criteria

Strategies Assessment

Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Demonstrate the

ability to

communicate in a

given situation.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 1172

Rubrics COSC 3325,

COSC 4172

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Stefan Andrei,

Dr. Lawrence

Osborne

Size = 21

Percentage =

80.67

The target of

80% was Met

Demonstrate the

ability to

comprehend what

is said and to show

an appreciation of

the importance of

listening.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 1172

Rubrics COSC 3325,

COSC 4172

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Stefan Andrei,

Dr. Lawrence

Osborne

Size = 21

Percentage =

85.43

The target of

80% was Met

Communicate

clearly at the level

of the audience the

technical material

intrinsic to the

discipline of

computer science.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 1172

Rubrics COSC 3325,

COSC 4172

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Stefan Andrei,

Dr. Lawrence

Osborne

Size = 21

Percentage =

80.67

The target of

80% was Met

71

Demonstrate

knowledge of the

communication

process.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 1172

Rubrics COSC 3325,

COSC 4172

CPSC 4360

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Stefan Andrei,

Dr. Lawrence

Osborne

Size = 27

Percentage =

75.70

The target of

80% was

Not Met


Results: All targets for the direct measurement of the performance criteria were met for the last five years until this year when

criterion 4 had only 75.7% of the students doing satisfactory work. The sample size was 27. The criterion was “Demonstrate

knowledge of the communication process.” On question 34 on the online student evaluations, “Students had the opportunity to

communicate design and implementation concepts to professionals and non-professionals” the target was met. The average was 3.86.

We did not meet targets for Exit Interview question 8 or Alumni Survey question 18.

Actions: In COSC 4172 we will conduct a review of methods for giving an effective presentation.


72

Student Outcome 8 Written Communication Skills**

**Graduates will demonstrate their ability to write effectively both technical and non-technical materials with appropriate multimedia

aids.

Indirect Assessment Methods: Student course and Instructor Evaluation, Exit Interview, Alumni Survey, ETS Scores


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Provide an

introduction that grabs

the attention of

readers.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size = 36

Percentage =

95.64

The target of

80% was Met

Organize documents

in terms of a few main

points or themes.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size = 36

Percentage =

94.39

The target of

80% was Met

73

Choose appropriate

illustrations, examples,

or evidence to support

the written documents.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size = 35

Percentage =

91.46

The target of

80% was Met

Write appropriately

for specified readers in

terms of technical

content.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics

CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size =35

Percentage =

96.26

The target of

80% was Met

Write organized,

grammatically correct

reports.

COSC

1172,

COSC

3325,

COSC

4172,

CPSC

4360,

COSC

4302

Rubrics CPSC 4360,

COSC 4302

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Sun, Dr.

Andrei, Dr.

Doerschuk

Size = 36

Percentage =

96.36

The target of

80% was Met

74


Results: For the sixth consecutive year, all direct measure targets were met and indirect measure targets were met (except COSC

1172).

Actions: None.


75

Student Outcome 9 Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning**

**Graduates will be demonstrate that they can independently acquire new computing related skills and knowledge in order to pursue

either further formal or informal learning after graduation.

Indirect Assessment Methods: Student course and Instructor Evaluation, Exit Interview, Alumni Survey, ETS Scores


Method(s)

Context for

Assessment

Time of Data

Collection

Assessment

Coordinator

Analysis of

Results

Be able to search scholarly

publications to assist in

resolving problems.

COSC 3325,

COSC 4172,

COSC 4302,

CPSC 4360

Rubrics COSC 3325 and

COSC 4172

Fall and Spring

of every year

Dr. Osborne and

Dr. Andrei

Size = 26

Percentage =

84.38

The target of

80% was Met

Intend to engage in

additional formal education

or participate in employer-

related training or research

projects.


of every year

Dr. Osborne Size = 9

Percentage =

77.22

The target of

80% was

Not Met

Independent study.

Participate in Honors

program or in undergraduate

research at Lamar. This

could be done in the

STAIRSTEP Program,

Presentations or Posters at

Professional Conferences,

COOP or Internship

position reports. Student


of every year

Dr. Osborne Size = 9

Percentage =

66.67

The target of

80% was

Not Met.

76

could own a software design

and development company.


Results: We met the first direct measure criterion. We did not meet the other two (77.22%, 66.67%), both of which are covered in

COSC 4172. We note that 77.22% was close to our target of 80%.

The targets for all online course evaluations for this outcome were either met or narrowly missed.

Actions: The Assessment Committee will analyze the rubric used to assess criterion 9.3 to determine if it should be modified to

include other elements that would indicate if students are capable of independent study.

We removed question 35 from the online course evaluations.


77

G.2 - Direct Measure Results Summary: Student Learning Outcomes

2012-2013

Summary of Student Learning Outcome Results 2012-2013

Student

Outcome

Performance

Criterion

2012-2013 Target

>=80%

out of

students

pass

Sample

Size

Mean Scale

[0%..100%]

Outcome 1 1 20 83.45%

2 20 83.45%

3 6 100.00%

4 12 91.00%

5 12 100.00%

6 19 97.26%

7 32 92.19%

Outcome 2.1 1 11 82.00%

2 12 83.00%

3 7 100.00%

Outcome 2.2 1 12 83.00%

2 12 83.00%

3 12 83.00%

4 12 83.00%

Outcome 2.3 1 7 100.00%

2 7 100.00%

3 7 86.00%

4 7 100.00%

5 10 90.00%

6 10 90.00%

Outcome 2.4 1 15 86.80%

2 15 86.80%

3 15 86.80%

4 15 86.80%

Outcome 2.5 1 6 83.00%

2 6 83.00%

3 6 83.00%

Outcome 2.6 1 18 83.00%

2 18 83.00%

3 18 83.00%

Outcome 2.7 1 8 88.00%

2 8 50.00% Not Met

3 8 88.00%

78

Outcome 3 1 26 91.69%

2 26 91.69%

3 26 91.69%

4 26 91.69%

Outcome 4 1 17 89.00%

2 17 89.00%

3 21 91.90%

4 17 93.00%

Outcome 5 1 17 92.00%

2 20 87.00%

3 17 82.00%

4 17 85.00%

5 17 89.00%

Outcome 6 1 27 98.07%

2 26 94.77%

3 26 98.00%

4 27 98.07%

Outcome 7 1 21 80.67%

2 21 85.43%

3 21 80.67%

4 27 75.70% Not Met

Outcome 8 1 36 95.64%

2 36 94.39%

3 35 91.46%

4 35 96.26%

5 36 96.36%

Outcome 9 1 26 84.38%

2 9 77.22% Not Met

3 9 66.67% Not Met

79

G.3 - Indirect Measure Results: Student Course and Instructor

Evaluation Summary 2012-2013

Student

Outcome Course Ques.

(u#)*

Semester Total

Sample

Size

Avg.

[1..5] >=3.75

Fall

Spring

Sample

Size

Mean

[1..5]

Sample

Size

Mean

[1..5]

Outcome 1

COSC

1336-

01 27 12 4.25 1 4.0 13 4.23

28 12 4.08 1 4.0 13 4.07

29 11 3.82 1 4.0 12 3.84

31 12 4.08 1 4.0 13 4.07

COSC

1336-

02 27

1 3.00 1 3.00 Not

Met

28

1 3.00 1 3.00 Not

Met

29

1 3.00 1 3.00 Not

Met

31

1 3.00 1 3.00 Not

Met

COSC

1336-

48F 27 8 3.0 5 3.2 13 3.077 Not

Met

28 8 2.75 5 3.2 13 3.077 Not

Met

29 8 2.75 5 3.2 13 3.077 Not

Met

31 8 3.00 5 3.8 13 3.077 Not

Met

COSC

1337-

01 27 7 4.29 22 3.725 29 3.861

28 7 3.86 22 3.635 29 3.689 Not

Met

29 7 4.14 22 3.913 29 3.981

30 7 3.71 22 3.820 29 3.793

31 7 4.14 22 4.315 29 4.272

COSC

2336-

01 27 12 4.33 9 4.000 21 4.189

28 12 4.33 9 4.000 21 4.189

80

30 12 4.17 9 4.220 21 4.191

31 12 4.58 9 4.440 21 4.503

32 12 4.42 9 4.220 21 4.334

38 12 3.92 9 3.780 21 3.860

COSC

2372 27

13 3.15 13 3.15 Not

Met

28

13 3.31 13 3.31 Not

Met

30

13 3.46 13 3.46 Not

Met

31

13 3.69 13 3.69 Not

Met

32

13 3.46 13 3.46 Not

Met

COSC

3304 27

9 4.11 9 4.11

28

9 4.00 9 4.00

29

9 3.56 9 3.56 Not

Met

30

9 4.00 9 4.00

31

9 3.44 9 3.44 Not

Met

32

9 3.44 9 3.44 Not

Met

CPSC

3320 27 23 4.17 23 4.17

28 23 4.09 23 4.09

30 23 3.96

38 23 4.22

COSC

4172 27 5 4.6 2 3.0 7 4.14

COSC

4302-

01 25 28 3.89 16 4.00 44 3.93

27 28 4.18 16 4.31 44 4.23

28 28 3.93 16 4.06 44 3.98

30 28 4.00 16 4.00 44 4.00

31 28 4.18 16 4.19 44 4.18

CPSC

4340 28 6 3.33 6 3.33 Not

Met

29 6 3.67 6 3.67 Not

Met

30 6 3.33 6 3.33 Not

Met

31 6 3.00 6 3.00 Not

81

Met

CPSC

4360-

01 25 6 4.33 6 3.83 12 4.08

27 6 4.83 6 4.33 12 4.58

28 6 4.67 6 4.33 12 4.50

29 6 4.67 6 4.33 12 4.50

30 6 4.50 6 4.50 12 4.50

31 6 4.67 6 4.33 12 4.50

32 6 4.33 6 4.50 12 4.42

Outcome

2.1

COSC

2336 27 12 4.33 9 4.000 21 4.19

28 12 4.33 9 4.000 21 4.19

29 12 4.00 9 4.00 21 4.00

30 12 4.17 9 4.220 21 4.19

31 12 4.58 9 4.440 21 4.50

40 12 4.50 8 4.25 20 4.40

COSC

3304 27 9 4.11 9 4.11

37 9 3.89 9 3.89

40 9 3.89 9 3.89

COSC

3302 27 4 4.00 4 4.00

39 4 4.00 4 4.00

40 4 3.75 4 3.75

Outcome

2.2

COSC

3304 27 9 4.11 9 4.19

28 9 4.00 9 4.00

33 9 3.89 9 3.89

39 9 3.56 9 3.56 Not

Met

40 9 3.89 9 3.89

Outcome

2.3

COSC

3302 30 4 3.75 4 3.75

39 4 4.0 4 4.00

40 4 3.75 4 3.75

Outcome

2.4

COSC

4302 27 28 4.18 16 4.31 44 4.23

28 28 3.93 16 4.06 44 3.98

35 28 4.07 16 4.25 44 4.14

39 28 3.82 16 4.06 44 3.91

40 28 3.93 16 4.44 44 4.12

Outcome

2.5

CPSC

4340 27 6 3.50 6 3.50 Not

Met

82

28 6 3.33 6 3.33 Not

Met

39 6 3.33 6 3.33 Not

Met

40 6 3.50 6 3.50 Not

Met

Outcome

2.6

CPSC

3320 28 23 4.09 23 4.09

30 23 3.96 23 3.96

38 23 4.22 23 4.22

39 23 4.13 23 4.13

40 23 4.00 23 4.00

Outcome

2.7

COSC

2372 27 13 3.15 13 3.15 Not

Met

31 13 3.69 13 3.69 Not

Met

35 13 3.39 13 3.39 Not

Met

40 13 3.77 13 3.77

COSC

4310 35 1 5.00 6 3.50 7 3.71 Not

Met

38 1 5.00 6 3.67 7 3.86

40 1 5.00 6 3.50 7 3.71 Not

Met

Outcome 3

COSC

2336-

01 37 12 4.33 9 4.11 21 4.24

38 12 3.92 9 3.78 21 3.86

40 12 4.5 8 4.25 20 4.40

CPSC

3320 37 23 4.17 23 4.17

38 23 4.22 23 4.22

40 23 4.00 23 4.00

COSC

4310 35 1 5.00 6 3.50 7 3.71 Not

Met

38 1 5.00 6 3.67 7 3.86

40 1 5.00 6 3.50 7 3.71 Not

Met

Outcome 4

COSC

1172 41 44 3.34 21 3.62 65 3.43 Not

Met

COSC

3325 41 9 4.00 9 4.00

CPSC

4360 41 6 4.33 6 4.17 12 4.25

Outcome 5 COSC 36 9 3.78 9 3.78

83

3325

Outcome 6

COSC

1172 25 45 3.29 21 3.19 66 3.26 Not

Met

26 45 3.36 21 3.10 66 3.28 Not

Met

COSC

4302-

01 25 28 3.89 16 4.00 44 3.93

26 28 4.11 16 4.06 44 4.09

34 28 3.93 16 4.25 44 4.05

35 28 4.07 16 4.25 44 4.14

CPSC

4340 25 6 3.00 6 3.00 Not

Met

26 6 3.00 6 3.00 Not

Met

34 6 3.00 6 3.00 Not

Met

35 6 3.00 6 3.00 Not

Met

CPSC

4360-

01 25 6 4.33 6 3.83 12 4.08

26 6 4.17 6 3.83 12 4.00

34 6 4.33 6 4.00 12 4.17

Outcome 7

COSC

1172 25 45 3.29 21 3.19 66 3.26 Not

Met

26 45 3.36 21 3.10 66 3.28 Not

Met

COSC

3325 34 9 3.44 9 3.44 Not

Met

42 9 4.00 9 4.00

CPSC

4360-

01 25 6 4.33 6 3.83 12 4.08

26 6 4.17 6 3.83 12 4.00

34 6 4.33 6 4.00 12 4.17

Outcome 8

COSC

1172 26 45 3.36 21 3.10 66 3.28 Not

Met

34 44 2.91 21 3.33 65 3.05 Not

Met

COSC

3325 42 9 4.0 9 4.00

COSC

4302- 26 28 4.11 16 4.00 44 4.07

84

01

34 28 3.93 16 4.31 44 4.07

CPSC

4360-

01 26 6 4.17 6 3.83 12 4.00

34 6 4.33 6 4.00 12 4.17

Outcome 9

COSC

3325 42 9 4.0 9 4.0

COSC

4172 27 5 4.6 2 3.0 7 4.14

34 5 4.2 2 3.0 7 3.86

37 5 4.4 2 2.0 7 3.71 Not

Met

40 5 4.4 2 2.0 7 3.71 Not

Met

42 5 4.4 2 2.0 7 3.71 Not

Met

85

G.4 - Indirect Measure Results: Exit Interview Summary 2012-2013

A. Program Quality. Each item is measured on a 10 point scale with a goal of a mean

score of at least 7.5.

Question Semester

Fall Spring

Total Sample

Size Average >=7.5

Sample Size Mean Sample Size Mean

1 5 8.20 3 8.00 8 8.13

2 5 8.00 3 8.00 8 8.00

3 5 8.60 3 4.00 8 6.88 Not

Met

4 5 8.20 3 8.33 8 8.25

B. Department Student Outcomes. Each item is measured on a 5 point scale with a goal

of a mean score of 4.0.

Student

Outcome Question Semester

Total

Sample

Size

Average

[1..5] >=3.75

Fall Spring

Sample

Size

Mean

[1..5]

Sample

Size

Mean

[1..5]

Outcome 1 1 5 4.60 3 4.33 8 4.50

2

5 3.60 3 3.67 8 3.63 Not

Met

3 5 4.20 3 4.00 8 4.13

6 5 4.40 3 4.33 8 4.37

12 5 4.20 3 4.00 8 4.13

Outcome 2 15 5 3.60 3 4.00 8 3.75

Outcome 3 3 5 4.20 3 4.00 8 4.13

4 5 4.00 3 4.33 8 4.12

6 5 4.40 3 4.33 8 4.37

7 5 4.20 3 3.67 8 4.00

Outcome 4 5 5 4.00 3 4.33 8 4.12

9 5 4.20 3 3.00 8 3.75

Outcome 5 9 5 4.20 3 3.00 8 3.75

Outcome 6 4 5 4.00 3 4.33 8 4.12

7 5 4.20 3 3.67 8 4.00

8

5 3.60 3 3.67 8 3.63 Not

Met

86

11 5 4.40 3 4.00 8 4.25

13 5 4.00 3 4.00 8 4.00

14 5 4.20 3 4.33 8 4.25

Outcome 7 8 5 3.60 3 3.67 8 3.63 Not

Met

13 5 4.00 3 4.00 8 4.00

14 5 4.20 3 4.33 8 4.25

Outcome 8 8 5 3.60 3 3.67 8 3.63 Not

Met

13 5 4.00 3 4.00 8 4.00

14 5 4.20 3 4.33 8 4.25

Outcome 9 1 5 4.60 3 4.33 8 4.50

10 5 4.40 3 4.00 8 4.25

11 5 4.40 3 4.00 8 4.25

87

G.5 - Indirect Measure Results: Exit Survey Summary 2012-2013

A. Program Quality. Each item is measured on a 5 point scale with a goal of a mean

score of at least 3.75 except question 3 where the goal is between 2.25 and 4.00/year.

Question Semester

Fall Spring

Total Sample

Size Average >=3.75

Sample Size

Mean

[1..5] Sample Size

Mean

[1..5]

1 5 4.40 3 3.33 8 4.00

2

5 3.20 3 3.67 8 3.38 Not

Met

3 5 3.40 3 3.67 8 3.50

4 5 4.20 3 3.33 8 3.87

5 5 4.20 3 3.33 8 3.87

6 5 4.60 3 4.00 8 4.38

7 5 4.40 3 4.67 8 4.50

8 5 3.80 3 2.67 8 3.38 Not

Met

9 5 3.60 3 3.33 8 3.50 Not

Met

10 5 4.20 3 3.67 8 4.00

11 5 3.40 3 4.33 8 3.75

12 5 3.60 3 4.33 8 3.87

13 5 4.20 3 4.33 8 4.25

14

5 3.60 3 3.67 8 3.63 Not

Met

15 5 3.60 3 4.33 8 3.87

16 5 4.00 3 3.67 8 3.88

17 5 4.00 3 4.00 8 4.00

18 5 4.00 3 3.67 8 3.88

88

B. Department Student Outcomes. Each item is measured on a 5 point scale with a goal

of a mean score of 3.75 except question 3 where the goal is between 2.25 and

4.00/year.

Student

Outcome Question Semester

Total

Sample

Size

Average

[1..5] >=3.75

Fall Spring

Sample

Size

Mean

[1..5]

Sample

Size

Mean

[1..5]

Outcome 5 16 5 4 3 3.67 8 3.88

Outcome 7 13 5 4.2 3 4.33 8 4.25

Outcome 8 12 5 3.6 3 4.33 8 3.87

Outcome 9 9 5 3.6 3 3.33 8 3.50 Not

Met

11 5 3.4 3 4.33 8 3.75

89

G.6 - Indirect Measure Results: Alumni Survey Summary 2010-2011

Question

Sample

Size

Mean

Standard

Deviation Target

A. Program Quality. Each item is

measured on a 10 point scale

with a goal of a mean score of at

least 8.0.

Scale

[0. .10]

>=8.0

1 9 8.00 0.87

2 9 7.89 1.05 Not Met

3 9 8 2.12

4 9 8.67 1.01

B. Department Student Outcomes.

Each item is measured on a 5

point scale with a goal of a mean

score of 4.0.

Scale

[1. .5]

>=4.0

1 9 4.44 0.73

2 9 4.11 0.78

3 9 4.44 0.53

4 9 4.33 0.73

5 9 3.89 1.05 Not Met

6 9 4.56 0.53

7 9 4.44 1.01

8 9 4.22 0.83

9 9 4.11 0.78

10 9 4.56 0.73

11 9 4.67 0.50

12 9 4.56 0.53

13 9 3.89 0.78 Not Met

14 9 4.22 0.83

15 9 4.17 0.75

16 9 4.33 0.52

17 9 4.67 0.52

90

G.7 - Indirect Measure Results: Advisory Board Feedback 2012-2013

The Lamar Department of Computer Science Advisory Board met on March 1, 2013 in

the Lamar Library. Several faculty from the department gave presentations to the Board.

Dr. Stefan Andrei made a presentation on the state of the department. Dr. Peggy

Doerschuk made a presentation about the STARS program. Dr. Tim Roden made a

presentation about plans for adding a concentration in computer game development to the

curriculum.

A common theme in the feedback from Board members was a need to teach students

more about mobile application development on a variety of platforms. After the Board

meeting, Dr. Stefan Andrei, Dr. Lawrence Osborne and Dr. Timothy Roden discussed the

feedback received. No actions were taken as a result of the Board meeting. However,

Dr. Roden reaffirmed his commitment to teach mobile development in the upcoming

game development courses (added to the curriculum in spring 2013 and expected to be

offered during the 2013-2014 academic year).

As part of the process for soliciting feedback from Board members, a written survey was

given. The questions and summary of feedback are provided below. There were 12

respondents.

1. Where do you see the biggest growth in technology jobs, requiring a Computer

Science degree, within the next five years?

Responses: Energy, healthcare, Oil & Gas, private Space enterprise, green energy, nano-

tech, system security, mobile, telecommunications, gaming, data mining, SaaS

2. What are the top 5 skills you think Computer Science graduates should have today?

Responses: Mobile development, SQL, Microsoft Visual Studio, communication skills,

ethics, teamwork, Scrum/Agile methodology, OOD, 2 or more languages, project

management, database design, analytics, code optimization

3. What additional courses or skills do you think Lamar University should add to its

Computer Science programs?

Responses: game development, forensics, ecommerce systems, mobile development, iOS,

Html 5, J#, embedded systems, security, SaaS, project management

4. What other knowledge and/or skills from other disciplines, besides Computer

Science, do you feel are very important for computing-related jobs?

Responses: sales & marketing, advertising & analytics, project management,

communication, business, basic engineering, math, technical writing, communication and

presentation skills, Python, source code control, physics for quantum computing

91

5. Do you think Lamar University should have additional technology degrees, besides

the B.S. in Computer Science, that focus a student’s studies in one particular area of

Computer Science? If so, what types of specialized Computer Science Degrees do

you recommend?

Responses: Operating systems, telecommunications, information assurance, security,

networking, (most respondents said no specialty degrees are needed but many

recommended adding concentrations to existing degree)

92

G.8 - Indirect Measure Results: ETS Exams 2012-2013

SEMESTER SAMPLE

SIZE MEAN

SCORE STD.

DEVIATION PROG. FUND. SYSTEMS ALGOR. LOW

SCORE HIGH

SCORE

Fall 2002 4 135.5 8.18 sample size too small 124 143

Spring 2003 9 144.2 14.43 41.8 33.2 41.3 131 173

Fall 2003 6 151.O 18.28 48.8 36 44.8 131 169

Spring 2004 5 162.2 14.65 sample size too small 139 178

FALL 2004 8 153.8 20.9 56.4 36.6 44.9 125 180

Spring 2005 7 172.7 12.32 78.7 55.3 66.3 159 194

Fall 2005 1 175 0 sample size too small 175 175

Spring 2006 5 158.2 14.13 sample size too small 154 171

Fall 2006 6 142.5 10.89 56 31 31 130 156

Spring 2007 4 156.5 7.93 67 52 40 148 167

Fall 2007 2 161 9.89 66 53 46 154 168

Spring 2008 6 149 11 67 36 31 130 154

Fall 2008 2 149.2 16.1 66 60 44 145 175

Spring 2009 7 150 12 60 46 33 130 164

Fall 2009 5 148 10 59 50 29 133 159

Spring 2010 3 155.3 10.9 65 44 44 140 164

Fall 2010 3 158.3 13.05 71 36 54 148 173

Spring 2011 2 142.5 7.79 50 26 38 137 148

Fall 2011 4 144.8 18.4 53 35 33 127 170

Spring 2012 4 151.1 3

141 165

Fall 2012 5 145.4 10.57

134 158

Spring 2013 5

93

Appendix H – Curriculum Map I: Introductory course R: Reinforce course S: Summative course *: Indicates those courses may contain the content related to the performance criteria, but do not affect the assessment strategies.

Outcome 1

Performance Criteria

COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Apply UML interaction diagrams and class diagrams to illustrate object models

I R R S

Apply important design patterns to OOD.

R S

Create useful software architecture documentation.

I R R R S R

Develop correct and efficient programs.

I R R S R

Debug implemented software in a proficient manner.

I R R R S

94

Design user interfaces appropriate to a large software system.

I R R S

Develop user-level documentation for software.

I I S R R R R R R R R R R R S

Outcome 2.1

COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Be able to develop software to support specific operations on frequently used discrete structures such as lists, trees, and graphs.

S * *

Be able to use elementary concepts of combinatorics, probability, and statistics to analyze and evaluate the efficiency of algorithms.

S

95

Be able to use concepts of discrete mathematics, automata, and finite state machines to explain the design of computer hardware.

I R S *

Outcome 2.2

COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Demonstrate basic understanding of asymptotic notations and time complexity.

I S

Design efficient algorithms and compare competing designs.

I S *

Demonstrate basic understanding of some design approaches such as greedy algorithms, dynamic programming and divide-and-conquer.

I S

96

Demonstrate familiarity with standard searching and sorting algorithms and linear and non-linear structures.

I S

Outcome 2.3

COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Demonstrate basic knowledge of equivalences between various types of languages and corresponding accepting devices including Turing Machines.

S

Demonstrate basic knowledge of practical applicability of various types of grammar and of some standard representation forms.

S

Demonstrate knowledge of limitations of computational capability of

S R

97

computer grammars.

Demonstrate basic knowledge of equivalences and normal forms of logical formulas in propositional logic.

S R

Demonstrate basic understanding and appreciation of the various essential programming languages constructs, paradigms, evaluation criteria, and language implementation issues.

S

Demonstrate basic knowledge and skills in programming techniques with the focus on concepts and not on a particular language.

S

98

Outcome 2.4


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Knows the main components of an operating system and their purposes and modes of interaction with one another.

S

Knows the structure of device drivers and the interaction between device drivers and operating systems.

S

Outlines the basic issues in memory management design and virtual memory.

S

Can develop basic system applications based on operating system APIs

R S

Outcome 2.5


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

99

Demonstrate the application of Entity-Relational diagrams to model real world problems.

S

Design relations for real world problems including implementation of normal forms, keys, and semantics constraints for each relation.

S R

Demonstrate competence in implementations of database applications

S

Outcome 2.6


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Employ the socket API to program applications among independent hosts.

S

100

Explain common network architectures, the services provided by each layer, and the protocols required for connecting peer layers.

S

Evaluate network models through simulation and the use of common performance metrics for networks.

S

Outcome 2.7


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Understands modern ISA design principles and employs them to evaluate systems.

I S *

Know how to measure performance for different computer architectures.

S

101

Demonstrate knowledge of hardware implementation of numbers and arithmetic operations.

I S

Outcome 3


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Be able to justify why selected research methods were chosen and state the intended outcomes of the study.

I S S

Identify steps used in a particular study.

I S S

Be able to outline and explain the key features of the adopted method.

I S S

Analyze and interpret collected data based on the adopted method and draw appropriate conclusions.

I S S

102

Outcome 4


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Demonstrate understanding of evolving computer technology applications.

I S

Demonstrate knowledge of positive social impacts including information globalization, E-Commerce, E-learning and new job creation.

I S R *

Demonstrate knowledge of negative social impacts including internet pornography, privacy violation, health hazards, computer crimes and dehumanization.

I S S * *

103

Demonstrate basic understanding of intellectual property protection via copyright and patent law and fair use exception for copyrighted software.

I S * S

Outcome 5


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Know the differences of various philosophical views on ethics such as deontology, utilitarianism, egoism, and relativism.

S

Understand the ACM code of ethics or a similar professional body’s code of ethics and principles underlying those ethics.

R S

104

Honor the property rights of others including copyrights and patents.

I S *

Demonstrate ability for ethical decision making within the computer profession.

I S R *

Demonstrate knowledge of factors affecting fair resolution of conflicts of interests.

I S *

Outcome 6


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Demonstrate the ability to work in heterogeneous environments which are diverse in gender, ethnicity, and academic accomplishment.

I R S S

Attend team meetings and contribute towards solution of technical

I R S S

105

problems during the meetings.

Make appropriate contributions within their skill set to the completion of the project.

I R S S

Demonstrate a sense of interdependence with other team members.

I R S S

Outcome 7


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Demonstrate the ability to communicate in a given situation.

I S S

Demonstrate the ability to comprehend what is said and to show an appreciation of the importance of listening.

I S S

106

Communicate clearly at the level of the audience the technical material intrinsic to the discipline of computer science.

I S S

Demonstrate knowledge of the communication process.

I S S

Outcome 8


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Provide an introduction that grabs the attention of readers.

I R R S S

Organize documents in terms of a few main points or themes.

I R R S S

Choose appropriate illustrations, examples, or evidence to support the written documents.

I R R S S

107

Write appropriately for specified readers in terms of technical content.

I R R S S

Write organized, grammatically correct reports.

I R R S S

Outcome 9


COSC 1172

COSC 1336

COSC 1337

COSC 2336

COSC 2372

COSC 3302

COSC 3304

COSC 3308

COSC 3325

CPSC 3320

COSC 4172

COSC 4302

COSC 4310

CPSC 4302

CPSC 4340

CPSC 4360

ELEN 3431

Be able to search scholarly publications to assist in resolving problems.

S S * *

Intend to engage in additional formal education or participate in employer-related training or research projects.

S

108

Independent study. Participate in Honors program or in undergraduate research at Lamar. This could be done in the STAIRSTEP Program, Presentations or Posters at Professional Conferences, COOP or Internship position reports.

S

109

Appendix I - Department Programming Documentation Standard

Programming Documentation Requirements

I. “External” Documentation (or Program Information): In programming

courses, the comprehensive set of documents that detail the design, development,

and structure of a program are usually condensed into a comparatively brief

‘block comment’ at the top of the source code. This “external” documentation

will minimally include:

a. Author(s) name, the course name/number, assignment name/number,

instructor’s name, and due date.

b. Detailed description of the problem the program was written to solve,

including the algorithm used to solve the problem.

c. The program’s operational requirements, such as the programming language,

special compilation information, and the input information.

d. Required features of the assignment that author(s) were not able to complete,

and/or information about the existing bugs.

II. Documentation about the “Classes”: When writing the code for a class in an

object–oriented programming language, it should be preceded by a block

comment minimally containing the following:

a. The class name, (author(s) name in team projects,) the names of any external

packages upon which the class depends, the name of the package for the

classes containing this class (if any), and the inheritance information.

b. An explanation of the purpose of the class.

c. Brief descriptions of the class and instance constants and variables.

d. Brief descriptions of constructors as well as the implemented class and

instance methods.

III. “Internal” Documentation (or in-program documentation): The details of the

program are explained by comments and placed within the code. The internal

documentation should minimally include the following:

a. A ‘block comment’ which should be placed at the head of every method (also

known as the function or subprogram). This will include the method name; the

purpose of the method; the method’s pre– and post–conditions; the method’s

return value (if any); and a list of all parameters, including direction of

information transfer (into this method, out from the method back to the calling

method, or both), and their purposes.

b. Meaningful identifier names. Traditionally, simple loop variables may have

single letter variable names, but all others should be meaningful. Never use

nonstandard abbreviations. If the programming language has a naming

convention for variables, methods, classes, etc., then those conventions should

be used.

110

c. Each variable and constant must have a brief comment immediately after its

declaration that explains its purpose. This applies to all variables, as well as to

fields of structure declarations.

d. Complex sections of the program that need some more explanations should

have comments just before or embedded in those program sections.

IV. Miscellaneous / Optional Requirements: a. Write programs with appropriate modularity; that is, create classes when

appropriate, write methods that accomplish limited, well-defined tasks, etc.

b. Global/public variables should be avoided in programs, unless they are

required.

c. Use “white spaces” (blank lines) to set apart logically related sections of code.

d. Indent bodies of methods, loops, and “if” statements, and do so with a single,

consistent style.

e. Unconditional branching (such as the “goto“ statement) should be avoided in

programs unless it is required for that specific language (such as the assembly

language).

Notes. There are a number of standards and tools for program documentation, such as

IEEE 1063-2001 “Standard for Software User Documentation” written by IEEE,

ISO/IEC 18019-2004 and ISO/IEC TR 9294 written by the International Standards

Organization (ISO), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

Tools such as Doxygen, javadoc, ROBODoc, and TwinText can be used to auto-

generate the code documents. Hence, these tools add more capabilities for document

preparation. For example, they are able to extract the comments from the source code and

create reference manuals in such forms as text or HTML files.

References

1. O. McCann. “Toward Developing Good Programming Style”.

http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/mccann/style.html, [accessed Jan 17, 2012]

2. P. DePasquale. http://www.comtor.org/ [accessed Jan 17, 2011]

3. O. Paull, “The Importance of Software Documentation”,

http://www.ehow.co.uk/about_6706857_importance-software-documentation.html

[accessed Jan 17, 2012]

4. Dimitri van Heesch: “Doxygen Documentation. Generate documentation from source

code”, 2012, http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/ [accessed Jan 17, 2012]

http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/mccann/style.html

http://www.comtor.org/

http://www.ehow.co.uk/about_6706857_importance-software-documentation.html

http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/

111

Appendix J – Meeting Minutes 2012-2013

Minutes of meetings of Computer Science committees are posted on the Department

website for assessment. Some committee minutes may not be publicly accessible.

This appendix includes minutes from meetings during the 2012-2013 year that were

relevant to assessment. The following minutes are included:

Assessment Committee Meetings 2012-2013 Academic Year

1. Assessment Committee, February 11, 2013

2. Assessment Committee, May 23, 2013

3. Assessment Committee, June 3, 2013



112


Assessment Committee Meeting

February 11, 2013

Maes Building, Room 59A

Committee Members

Dr. Roden, Chair Dr. Andrei Dr. Liu Dr. Makki Dr. Osborne

Invited Guest Dr. Doerschuk

In Attendance


Minutes Taken By Mrs. Denise Rode, Administrative Associate Sr.

Assessment Committee Agenda

February 11, 2013

I. Approval of Minutes at Last Meeting on August 2, 2012. II. Request from Dr. Peggy Doerschuk for changes to CPSC 4360 (See attached

memorandum). NOTE: Any changes approved must be voted on during a department faculty

meeting. III. Other Business. IV. Adjourn.

Dr. Roden called the meeting to order at 2:00pm.

Approval of Meeting Minutes

Chair, Dr. Roden asked members if the Assessment Committee Meeting Minutes from

the last meeting of August 2, 2012 are accepted as presented.

Dr. Osborne motioned that the minutes be approved as presented. Dr. Makki seconded

the motion.

Dr. Roden said that the minutes are moved and seconded that they be accepted as

presented.

113

Dr. Doerschuk Memorandum Chair, Dr. Roden asked members to review the memorandum from Dr. Doerschuk

regarding the CPSC 4360, Software Engineering’s current summative courses for ABET

evaluation. There are 20 outcomes assigned to CPSC 4360 and Dr. Doerschuk would like

to see some of the outcomes assigned to the course COSC 4172, Senior Assessment.

The committee discussed each item thoroughly and reviewed the Curriculum Map before

making the decision to assign items number 12, 13, 14, and 15 to COSC 4172, Senior

Assessment.

Upon discussion, item number 5 will be removed as an outcome for CPSC 4360,

Software Engineering.

Item numbers 7 and 8 will remain on CPSC 4360 as senior students need to know the

importance of ethics and the ability to work in heterogeneous environments.

All committee members were in agreement with the changes made to the CPSC 4360 for

the summative evaluation for ABET.

A motion was made by Dr. Roden to present the changes at the next Faculty Meeting. Dr.

Bo Sun seconded the motion.

Dr. Roden asked members to say “Aye” if they are in favor of the changes made to the

CPSC 4360, Software Engineering outcomes and received an unanimously “Aye”.

Dr. Roden asked members if anyone opposed the changes and no members opposed.

Dr. Roden asked if there was any more business to discuss at this time. Members did not

have anything further to discuss at this time.

Dr. Roden asked for a motion to adjourn and all members said “Aye”. Meeting was

adjourned at 3:00pm.

114



May 23, 2013


Committee Members


In Attendance




May 23, 2013

I. Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting on February 11, 2013. II. Assessment for 2012-2013 Academic Year. III. Other Business. IV. Adjourn.

Dr. Roden called the meeting to order at 11:00am.


Chair, Dr. Roden asked members if the Assessment Committee Meeting Minutes from

the last meeting of February 11, 2013 are accepted as presented.

Dr. Makki motioned that the minutes be approved as presented. Dr. Andrei seconded the

motion.

Dr. Roden asked members if anyone opposed and no members opposed.

Dr. Roden asked members to say “Aye” if they are in favor of the minutes as presented

and all members unanimously replied ‘Aye”.

Minutes of February 11, 2013 are accepted as presented to the members.

115

Dr. Roden asked Dr. Osborne to explain what will be necessary to complete the

documentation needed for the ABET audit in October 2013.

I. Dr. Osborne distributed the handout, Procedures for Measuring Each Student

Outcome Indirectly to all members. He proceeded to describe what each column title meant and what would be necessary for the assessment of the 2012-2013 audit.

II. Dr. Osborne shared that Dr. Jiangjiang Liu calculated and prepared all tables that were presented for the ABET Assessment Report 2011-2012. He asked Dr. Liu if she would calculate and prepare all tables for redirect measures of the 2012-2013 ABET Assessment Report. She agreed and Dr. Osborne will email her all templates.

III. Dr. Osborne explained to members that most universities find it hard to get

employer surveys. He utilizes “LinkedIn” to review what former students are doing with their education after graduation. He encourages all faculty and staff to utilize this tool as the education objective is not what we want them to be able to do now but what they are able to do five (5) years from now.

IV. Dr. Andrei has collected the Alumni Surveys and will have our Office

Assistant, Jenifar Kallul secure them into the ABET Binder for 2012-2013.

I. Dr. Osborne distributed the handout, Appendix B Indirect Measure and Direct

Measure: Assessment Methodology 2012-2013. He reviewed the document with all members and explained what responsibilities belonged to which member of the committee.

II. Dr. Liu will be responsible for: Indirect Measures: Exit Interviews, Exit Survey and ETS Scores.

III. Dr. Osborne will be responsible for: Course Evaluations.

IV. Dr. Andrei will be responsible for getting the Official Transcripts of six (6)

students. Dr. Andrei will also check the course syllabus for the strategies to ensure that

the course objectives correspond to the performance criteria.

V. Dr. Makki will be responsible for: Direct Measures and Facilities of the Self-

Study report.

VI. Dr. Roden will be responsible for: Direct Measures: Strategies

I. Dr. Osborne distributed the handout, Assessment Summary of Direct Measures

2011-2012. He reviewed each column to members.

116

a. Performance Criteria – Specific Information auditors are looking for. b. Strategies – What course(s) the data was collected. c. Assessment Method(s) – Where the data was collected. d. Context for Assessment – What course the data was collected. e. Time of Data Collection – What semester the data was collected. f. Assessment Coordinator – Teacher(s) that teach the course. g. Analysis of Results – Size, Percentage and Target

II. Assessment Summary of Direct Measures 2011-2012

a. Dr. Osborne reviewed the Criteria for Satisfactory Performance – This information can be found on page 37 of this handout.

b. The rules we are currently utilizing is on Page 40, the department has decided that the target will be at least 80% of the students in a course that do acceptable work on each performance criterion.

Dr. Osborne suggested that the committee meet again next week. Dr. Roden will arrange

a time for the next meeting. At that time, the committee will have completed their

assignments and the material will be reviewed. The second cycle results will be written

after making comparisons between the 2011-2012 data and the 2012-2013 data. If

another meeting is necessary, it will be arranged at the next meeting.

Dr. Osborne shared that over the last several years, there has been an improvement in the

outcomes related to ethics and social impact, as well as simulation. Simulation is covered

in the courses Data Structures and Computer Architecture.

Dr. Osborne informed members that the “Self-Study” will need to be ready by the end of

June.

Dr. Osborne asked that the Administrative Associate Sr., Denise Rode orders supplies

that will be needed to organize all data for the audit. Order consists of: 20-25 3” binders,

6 5” binders, Index Sheets, and legal pads. This order was placed on the afternoon of

May 23, 2013.

Dr. Andrei formed a Beginning Freshman Course Assessment Committee that will

review COSC 1336 Programming Fundamentals I, COSC 1337 Programming

Fundamentals II and COSC 2336 Programming Fundamentals III. The purpose of this

committee will be to assess these three (3) courses and determine:

I. Confirm the textbook(s) to be used for each course based on their assessment

results. II. Analyze and list the sequence of topics for each course based on their

assessment results.

117

The members of the Beginning Freshman Course Assessment Committee are Dr. Makki

as Chair, Dr. Andrei, Dr. Doerschuk, Dr. Roden and Mrs. Wang.

Dr. Roden asked if there was any more business to discuss at this time. Members did not

have anything further to discuss at the time.

Dr. Roden asked for a motion to adjourn and all members said “Aye”. Meeting was

adjourned at 12:15pm.

118



June 3, 2013


Committee Members


In Attendance



Handouts: Indirect Measure: Exit Interview Summary 2012-201

Appendix G Direct Measure: Student Learning Outcome Results and

Analyses 2012-2013


June 3, 2013

I. Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting on May 23, 2013.

II. Assessment for 2012-2013 Academic Year

a. Review of Indirect Measures Results (Dr. Liu) and Comparison to

Previous Year.

b. Review of Direct Measures Results (Dr. Makki) and Comparison to

Previous Year.

III. Recommendations for Continued Program Improvement.

IV. Other Business.

V. Adjourn.

Dr. Roden called the meeting to order at 10:20am.


Dr. Osborne moved to accept the May 23, 2013 Assessment Committee Meeting Minutes

as presented to the members.

Dr. Makki seconded the motion. Dr. Roden asked members if anyone opposed and no

members opposed.

Dr. Roden asked members to say “Aye” if they are in favor of the minutes as presented

and all members unanimously replied “Aye”.

Minutes of May 23, 2013 are accepted as presented to the members.

119

Dr. Liu presented the handouts Indirect Measure: Exit Interview Summary 2012-2013

and Appendix G Direct Measure: Student Learning Outcome Results and Analyses 2012-

2013 to all members.

Dr. Andrei questioned the results for Outcome 9 on the Appendix G Direct Measure

handout. His concern was on how the result was only 66% and it should be higher. Dr.

Osborne explained that it is difficult to assess a one hour freshman course. The totals on

the report were taken from semesters Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 combined.

Dr. Liu’s report was well prepared and the hard work put into making the report was

appreciated by the committee.

Dr. Makki figured the Direct Measure totals for the report. There were some questions on

how Dr. Makki reached the totals and he was given a new formula to use and refigure

totals on the Direct Measure student average on the report. The corrected report will be

presented at the next Assessment Committee Meeting.

The committee agreed that it will identify weakness(es) from the assessment data and

document the analysis. If our scores are low or if we barely make the percentage, we will

look at that area and see what is going on with particular classes.

We may not meet every objective on the report. We have upper level student’s exit

surveys and exit interviews which are their last chance to give feedback. We need to

remember that a teacher cannot meet everything in every class. The assessment is not

considered a weakness for the teacher but does show where there are program concerns.

ABET is looking for consistency on how the students are achieving outcomes rather than

finding out how poorly a teacher is teaching.

Dr. Osborne stated that student evaluations are not our only measure. Many evaluations

are not high if students misunderstand the question.

Question 3 review of report: Dr. Osborne explained that “scheduling” is always a

problem as students complain about not having all courses available to them each

semester. The Computer Science Department does work with students to ensure they are

able to graduate on time.

The committee has concerns that results were not good regarding the students being

ready for higher education or employment. We will be reviewing results for both the

indirect and direct measures to see how we have done and in what areas need more

attention.

120

Review of Exit Interview Questions form.

Committee asked the Administrative Associate Sr. to edit Question 2 as follows: Your

education ensured that you can design software solutions to different types of problems.

The committee unanimously agreed that the question should read as above.

Committee asked the Administrative Associate Sr. to edit Question 8 as follows: Your

education developed in you skill in communication and cooperation within workgroups.

The committee unanimously agreed that the question should read as above.

The updated Exit Interview Questions form will be presented to members at the next

Assessment Committee Meeting.

Dr. Roden as the members if there was any other business for discussion. No one had any

further business.

Dr. Roden adjourned the meeting at 12:15pm.

121



June 10, 2013


Committee Members

Dr. Roden, Chair Dr. Andrei Dr. Liu Dr. Makki Dr.

Osborne

In Attendance

Dr. Roden, Chair Dr. Andrei Dr. Liu Dr. Makki Dr.

Osborne


Handouts: Appendix C Indirect Measure: Alumni Survey Summary 2012-2013

Appendix F Indirect Measure: Student Evaluation Summary 2012-2013

Appendix G Direct Measure: Student Learning Outcome Results and

Analysis 2012-2013

Procedures for Measuring Each Student Outcome Indirectly

Student Learning Outcomes at the PROGRAM Level Student

Outcome 2.1


Outcome 2.2


Outcome 2.3


Outcome 2.4


Outcome 2.5


Outcome 2.6


Outcome 2.7

Table of Contents


June 10, 2013

I. Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting on June 3, 2013.

II. Assessment for 2012-2013 Academic Year.

122

Review of Direct Measures Results (Dr. Makki) and Comparison to Previous

Year.

Status of Self-Study (Dr. Roden).

III. Recommendations for Continued Program Improvement.

IV. Other Business.

V. Adjourn.

Dr. Roden called the meeting to order at 1:40pm.


Dr. Liu asked for corrections to the first paragraph which needed several additions to

handouts that she presented to all members. These are the handouts Dr. Liu distributed:

Indirect Measure: Exit Interview Summary & Exit Survey 2012-2013 as well as the ETS

Report.

Minutes for June 3, 2013 will be reviewed at the next Assessment Committee Meeting

for approval.

Review of Direct Measures and Comparison to Previous Year

Dr. Makki presented all members with the updated Summary Page. The committee

discussed each area individually that was “Not Met”.

Outcome 2.7 (Your education ensured that you can design software solutions to different

types of problems.) Dr. Roden asked Dr. Liu what could be done to improve in this area.

Outcome 2.7 was met in 2011-2012.

ABET report indicates that issue #1 is not a problem. We do want to monitor this and if

this continuous, we will need to change structure that measures the project just in itself

and may justify a big change. The professor will monitor this assignment project

carefully. A high school teacher prepares a student to be a good higher education student.

It is our duty to prepare the higher education student to want to get their

Masters/Doctorate.

NOTE: Committee agreed unanimously that …software solutions to a wide range of

problems be changed to software solutions to different types of problems. The

Administrative Associate Sr., Mrs. Denise Rode will make the changes to the Exit

Interview Question form and present it to the Committee at the next Assessment

Committee Meeting.

Outcome 5.2 (Your education fostered an understanding of the impact of the discipline on

relevant local and global social issues.) This outcome was also “met” in 2011-2012. Dr.

123

Osborne believes there may be a correction to be made to this outcome. Dr. Osborne

asked Dr. Makki to check with Dr. Doerschuk on how many passed her class. If the

figures are incorrect, Dr. Makki will notify Dr. Roden with corrections.

Outcome 7.4 (Your education offered the preparation necessary to design and conduct

simulations or other experiments and analyze and interpret data.) Calculations will be

refigured for this outcome due to the change of courses used to figure this area would

make the total over 80%. Outcome 7.4 was met in 2011-2012.

Dr. Makki was asked where he got his data and he informed the Committee that all

information was taken from the system.

Discussion of Oral Reporting: The Committee discussed the various ways in which a

teacher can help students improve in their oral reporting. Review with students the proper

way in which one conducts an oral report. What attributes are to be taken before they

give a successful report.

Outcome 9.1 (Your education fostered an awareness of professional and ethical

responsibilities and their application in real situations.) Dr. Osborne explained that ACM

was taken out before fall semester started in 2012. Dr. Osborne will have Abu Shufean,

Webmaster change the % for his data on the Internet and the change will show that the

outcome was met with 80.5%. Outcome 9.1 was met in 2011-2012.

Dr. Roden asked Committee if they would like to review the rubric he uses. How do we

get students enthusiastic for more training? The students are not attending Inspired or

ACM and even after Dr. Zaloom speaks to them, there is no interest in that area either.

Outcome 9.3 Independent Study Dr. Andrei asked Dr. Roden to send him a report for his

area and send Dr. Liu one for her area.

Dr. Osborne shared with the Committee that the whole purpose of problem areas is to

review the situation(s) at hand and determine what needs to be changed in order to be

able to meet the outcomes. Do we need to talk to the teacher and see what can be changed

to meet the demands of the students or do we need to assign another teacher to the

course? Look for the problem and allocate staff and improve the situation. We need to

know what exactly the problem is and make some positive changes. We all know that the

students choose the best liked teacher. This is why we have indirect student evaluations

and direct student measures.

ABET does not allow higher education schools to rate teaching staff by grades. If the

teacher is pressured to give good grades, they will give good grades. We are trying to

access data to get results and have something to look at. Dr. Osborne shared with the

committee that the students are required to submit a “Life Long Learning” report to him.

124

Dr. Osborne distributed the handout Appendix C Indirect Measure: Alumni Survey

Summary 2012-2013. We will not be able to utilize the Employer Survey as we did not

receive this data. And we have a small amount of data from the Alumni also.

The Alumni Survey Summary 2012-2013 shows data for schedules in Question A 1-4.

Question B 1-17 shows data for student’s future endeavors. Dr. Osborne utilizes

“LinkedIn” to obtain graduated student’s resumes. According to their resumes, the

students are doing fairly well. Dr. Osborne asked the Committee how they wanted to

evaluate students by using their resumes.

Dr. Osborne distributed the handout Procedures for Measuring Each Student Outcome

Indirectly. He asked the Committee what questions from 27-40 are the most important.

There are some courses which are well taught, such as Operating Systems, Software

Engineering and Database Design. Notice how may courses are repeated in each

outcome, this is due to the fact that they are related to different outcomes.

What criteria will we use to evaluate Indirect data? We need to remember that our job is

to get students to complete the evaluations. They need to understand what they are being

asked and the evaluation questions need to be reviewed in the classroom setting before

they complete the evaluations. EXAMPLE: Before starting class, explain to students that

the topic will regard “simulations” and that this topic will be on their Exit Interview

Questions.

Procedures for Measuring Each Student Outcome Indirectly

Dr. Roden assigned the following to each Committee member so data will be ready for

discussion on Friday, June 14, 2013. Assignments are as follows:

1, 2.1, 2.2 Dr. Roden

2.3, 2.4, 2.5 Dr. Makki

2.6, 2.7, 3 Dr. Liu

4, 5, 6 Dr. Andrei

7, 8, 9 Dr. Osborne

Dr. Osborne suggested that each member review the indirect and direct measures and see

how they fit. Results will be written and then the action(s) will be written. He reminded

members to just “write” results, not actions. Actions will be discussed and members

approve of the actions.

Table of Contents Dr. Roden’s handout “Table of Contents” was reviewed with the committee. SELF-

STUDY

Background Information Data is from 2009

Criterion 1: Students Dr. Osborne

Criterion 2: Program Educational Objectives Dr. Roden wrote summary/ Dr.

Andrei will review summary

125

Criterion 3: Student Outcomes Dr. Osborne

Criterion 4: Continuous Improvement Dr. Roden & Dr. Osborne –

Justifications needed

Criterion 5: Curriculum Dr. Bo Sun

Criterion 6: Faculty Missing Classes Dr. Tran taught –

Mrs. Rode will provide data

Criterion 7: Facilities Dr. Makki & Mr. Frank Sun

Criterion 8: Institutional Support Dr. Andrei

Appendix A - E

Dr. Roden reviewed the appendixes with the committee.

Appendix A: Course Syllabi Dr. Roden is in the process of reviewing

syllabus

Appendix B: Faculty Vitae Dr. Roden has completed this area

Appendix C: Equipment Mr. Frank Sun provided this data

Appendix D: Institutional Summary Dr. Andrei & Greg Marsh

Appendix E: Curriculum Map This has been completed

Signature Attesting to Compliance This has been completed

Assessment Committee will provide Dean Brenda Nichols a copy of the material by

Friday, June 21, 2013 for her review.

Dr. Roden informed Committee that the next Assessment Committee Meeting will be

held on Friday, June 14, 2013 at 1:30pm in Room 59A.

Dr. Roden asked the members if there was any other business for discussion. No one had

any further business.

Dr. Andrei motioned to adjourn the meeting. Dr. Osborne seconded the motion. Members

unanimously agreed by saying “Aye”. Dr. Roden adjourned the meeting at 3:45pm.

126



June 14, 2013


Committee Members


Invited Guest Dr. Doerschuk

In Attendance

Dr. Roden, Chair Dr. Andrei Dr. Makki Dr. Osborne Dr. Bo Sun



June 14, 2013

I. Approval of Minutes at Last Meeting on June 10, 2013. II. Assessment for 2012 academic year.

a. Discussion of Results of Assessment (all committee members) i. Outcomes 1,2.1,2.2 – Roden

ii. Outcomes 2.3,2.4,2.5 – Makki iii. Outcomes 2.5,2.7,3 – Liu iv. Outcomes 4,5,6 – Andrei v. Outcomes 7,8,9 – Osborne

b. Status of Self-Study (Roden) III. Other business. IV. Adjourn.

Dr. Roden, Chair called the meeting to order at 1:40pm.

Approval of Meeting Minutes Dr. Andrei motioned for the June 3, 2013 Assessment Committee Meeting Minutes to be approved. Dr. Makki seconded the motion. Dr. Roden asked members to say "Aye” if they were in agreement and the members replied “Aye”, they agreed unanimously.

127

Dr. Osborne motioned for the June 10, 2013 Assessment Curriculum Meeting Minutes to be approved. Dr. Andrei seconded the motion. Dr. Roden asked members to say “Aye” if they were in agreement and the members replied “Aye”, they agreed unanimously. Dr. Osborne will forward Dr. Liu the Fall 2012 ETS scores to her.

Dr. Roden will be submitting the ABET 2012-2013 Accreditation Report to Dean Nichols on Thursday, June 20, 2013. He will email the updated report to all committee members for their review on Saturday or Sunday.

Discussion of Results of Assessment

Dr. Roden's assignment was Outcomes 1, 2.1 and

2.2.

Student Outcome 1: Software Fundamentals

Performance Criteria:

1. Apply UML interaction diagrams and class diagrams to illustrate object models.

2. Apply important design patterns to OOD.

3. Create useful software architecture documentation.

4. Develop correct and efficient programs.

5. Debug implanted software in a proficient manner.

6. Design user interfaces appropriate to a large software system.

7. Develop user-level documentation for software.

Student Outcome 2.1: Computer Science Technology Skills - Discrete Mathematics

and Structures.


1. Be able to develop software to support specific operations on frequently used discrete

structures such as lists, trees and graphs.

2. Be able to use elementary concepts of combinatorics, probability, and statistics to

analyze and evaluate the efficiency of algorithms.

3. Be able to use concepts of discrete mathematics, automata, and finite state machines to

explain the design of computer hardware.

Results:

All direct measure criteria were met this year as compared to last year when criteria 2,

COSC 3304 was not met (60%). For the first time since 2010, we met measures for

Outcome 2.1.1. We did not meet measures for Outcome 2.1.2 from 2010 through 2012;

however, we did meet measures for the academic year 2012-2013. Measures were met in

2012-2013 for Outcome 2.1.3.

Indirect data was low and we will bring this to the instructor's attention.

All measures were met for this outcome in the Student Evaluations. Unable to compare to

last year as this was not assessed.

128

There are no questions on the Exit Interview, Exit Survey or Alumni Survey for this

outcome.

Actions:

Since there was an overall improvement from last year and all targets were met, no

actions are planned for the 2013-2014 academic year.

Second Cycle Results:

Last year we proposed that beginning with Fall 2012, the MATH 2305 Discrete

Mathematics course would become a prerequisite course for the COSC 3304 Algorithm

Analysis and Design.

This is our second cycle and we met our targets with improvement over last year.

Student Outcome 2.2: Computer Science Technology Skills - Analysis and Design of

Algorithms.


1. Demonstrate basic understanding of asymptotic notations and time completely.

2. Design efficient algorithms and compare competing designs.

3. Demonstrate basic understanding of some design approaches such as greedy

algorithms, dynamic programming and divide-and-conquer.

4. Demonstrate familiarity with standard searching and sorting algorithms and linear and

non-linear structures.

Results:

All direct measure criteria were met this year as compared to last year when criteria 1 and

2 were not met (both 60%). Students indicated that they did not feel they had a firm grasp

of the topic, “Algorithms”.

In the Student Evaluations, question 39 did not meet the target in COSC 3304.

Question 39: “This course provides you with a firm theoretical foundation for the subject

of the course. Unable to compare to last year as this was not assessed.

In the Student Evaluations, question 40 did meet the target.

-

Unable to compare to last year as this was not assessed.

There are no questions on the Exit Interview, Exit Survey or Alumni Survey for this

outcome.

Actions: Since the results are mixed (direct measures improved while student evaluations

were not met), no actions are planned for the 2013-2014 academic year except to

continue to use student evaluations in COSC 3304 to measure this outcome.

Second Cycle Results: Last year we proposed that beginning with Fall 2012, MATH

2305 Discrete Mathematics become a prerequisite course for COSC 3304 Algorithm and

Analysis and Design.

129

The measure of online question 39 was 3.56 which does not meet our target but is not

extremely low. We will discuss with perspective teachers instructional methods of

teaching analysis.

Dr. Makki's assignment was Outcomes 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.

Student Outcome 2.3:


1. Demonstrate basic knowledge of equivalences between various types of languages and

corresponding accepting devices including Turing Machines.

2. Demonstrate basic knowledge of practical applicability of various types of grammar

and of some standard representation forms.

3. Demonstrate knowledge of limitations of computational capability of computer

grammars.

4. Demonstrate basic understanding and appreciation of the various essential

programming languages constructs, paradigms, evaluation criteria, and language

implementation issues.

5. Demonstrate basic knowledge and skills in programming techniques with the focus on

concepts and not on a particular language.

Results:

The performance targets for all of the six criteria were met for direct measure, with the

sample size of 7 for year 2012-2013. Also, we have similar result for last year. The

performance targets of this outcome also have been met for indirect measure, with the

sample size of 4 for year 2012-2013. However, for 2011-2012 course evaluations are not

used to evaluate Outcome 2.3.

Actions:

No action is mandated by our assessment.


The instructor was aware that last year wanted to make sure that knowledge of the

limitations of computational capability of computer grammars is to be covered in the

class and this year the instructor successfully incorporated that material into the

curriculum for COSC 3302.



1. Knows the main components of an operating system and their purposes and modes of

interaction.

2. Knows the structure of device drivers and the interaction between device drivers and

operating systems.

3. Outlines the basic issues in memory management design and virtual memory.

4. Can develop basic system applications based on operating system APIs.

Results:

130

The performance targets for all of the four criteria were met for the direct measure, with

the sample size of 15 for year 2012-2013. We have similar results last year with sample

size of 6. We have similar results last year with sample size of 11. The performance

targets of this outcome also have been met for the indirect measure, with the sample size

of 44 for year 2012-2013. However, for 2011-2012 course evaluations are not used to

evaluate Outcome 2.

Action:

No action is mandated by our assessment.

Second Cycle Results

None.



1. Demonstrate the application of Entity-Relational diagrams to model real world

problems.

2. Design relations for real world problems including implementation of normal forms,

keys and semantics constraints for each relation.

3. Demonstrate competence in implementations of database applications.

Results:

The performance targets for all of the three criteria were met for direct measure, with the

sample size 6 for year 2012-2013. In 2011-2013, criterion 2 were not met, with sample

size of 4. However, the performance targets of this outcome have not been met for

indirect measure, with the sample size of 6 for year 2012-2013. However, 2011-2012

course evaluations are not used to evaluate Outcome 2.

The Exit Interview results were 3.75 for sample of 8 for Outcome 2 which showed that

this Outcome has been met (question 15). For 2011-2012, the result was 4.50 for sample

of 8.

The Alumni Survey results were 4.17 for sample of 9 for Outcome 2 which showed that

this Outcome has been met (question 15). For 2011-2012, the result was 4.17 for sample

of 6.

Actions:

Since direct measure targets were met for all performance criteria and the sample size

was small, no actions will be taken as a result of the results except to notify the instructor

of results of student evaluations (since evaluations did not meet targets for indirect

measures).


None.

Dr. Liu’s assignment was Outcomes 2.6, 2.7 and 3.0.

Dr. Liu motioned to have Number 3 of the Student Evaluation Question removed from

the report Direct Measure and Indirect Measure Comparison 2012-2013 COSC 3308-01

question 38 and COSC 3308-01 question 39. All members were in agreement

unanimously.

131



1. Employ the socket API to program applications among independent hosts.

2. Explain common network architectures, the services provided by each layer, and the

protocols required for connecting peer layers.

3. Evaluate network models through simulation and the use of common performance

metrics for networks.

Results:

The results are all satisfactory in 2012-2013.

In 2011-2012, performance criterion 2 was not met with the percentage of 66.67% and

sample size of 6 students. The department made improvement on performance criterion 2

with the percentage of 83.00% and sample size of 18 students.



1. Understands modern ISA design principles and employs them to evaluate systems.

2. Know how to measure performance for different computer architectures.

3. Demonstrate knowledge of hardware implementation of numbers and arithmetic

operations.

Results:

The results are all satisfactory except direct measure performance criterion 2 in 2012-

2013.

Performance criterion 2 is not met with the percentage of 50% and sample size of 8

students in 2012-2013. In 2011-2012, performance criterion 2 was met with the

percentage of 100% and sample size of 9 students. Final exam questions were used to

assess performance criterion.

Actions:

In 2012-2013, the department will monitor performance criterion 2 and the instructor will

give more attention to this area.

Student Outcome 3:


1. Justify why selected research methods were chosen and state the intended outcomes to

the study.

2. Identify steps used in a particular study.

3. Outline and explain the key features of the adopted method.

4. Analyze and interpret collected data based on the adopted method and draw

appropriate conclusions.

Results:

The results are all satisfactory except some for some indirect measure Student Course and

Instructor Evaluation results in 2012-2013.

The department made improvement on CPSC 3320. The targets of the Student Course

and Instructor Evaluation were not met for CPSC 3320 in 2011-2012 and are all met in

2012-2013. The cumulative averages were 3.67 for question 38 and 3.67 for question 40

132

with the sample size of 6 students in 2011-2012. In 2012-2013, the cumulative averages

are 4.22 for question 38, and 4.00 for question 40 with the sample size of 23 students.

The department also made improvement on COSC 4310. The target of the Student

Course and Instructor Evaluation question 38 was not met with the average of 3.50 for

COSC 4310 in 2011-2012 and is met with the average of 3.86 in 2012-2013. The sample

size is 8 for both years. The results for the Student Course and Instructor Evaluation

questions 35 and 38 are also improved. The cumulative averages were 3.25 for question

35. In 2012-2013, the cumulative averages are very close to our target 3.75 with 3.71 for

question 35.

The targets for the Student Course and Instructor Evaluation for COSC 3308 were all met

with the average of 4.09 for questions 38 and 39 in 2011-2012. The targets are not met

with the average of 3.55 for questions 38 and 39 in 2012-2013. However, the cumulative

averages are very close to our target of 3.75

Dr. Andrei’s assignment was Outcomes 4, 5 and 6.

Student Outcome 4: Societal Awareness: Graduates will be aware of and

understand the impact of computer technology on society at large, on the workplace

environment and on individuals.


1. Demonstrate understanding of evolving computer technology applications.

2. Demonstrate knowledge of positive social impacts including information globalization,

E-Commerce, E- learning and new job creation.

3. Demonstrate knowledge of negative social impacts including internet pornography,

privacy violation, health hazards, computer crimes and dehumanization.

4. Demonstrate basic understanding of intellectual property protection via copyright and

patent law and fair use exception for copyrighted software.

Results:

The sample size is 17, which is comparable with last year, and the direct results met our

targets in all of the performance criteria of the student outcome 4 (89%, 89%, 91.9%, and

93%). Analyzing question 41 ("Obtain Information/Local & Global impact-societal

issues”) from the Student Course and Instructor Evaluation, the target has been met for

COSC 3325 and CPSC 4360 with 4 out of 5 and 4.25 out of 5. The average was only 3.43

instead of minimum of 3-75.

As for Exit Interview, question 5 ("Your education fostered an understanding of the

impact of the discipline on relevant local and global social issues") and question 9 ("Your

education fostered on awareness of professional and ethical responsibilities and their

application in real situations") were both met in 2012-2013 with an average of 4.12 and

3.75, respectively comparable with 2011-2012 academic year.

There is no question for the Exit Survey which reflects this student outcome.

As for Alumni Survey, question 9 (“Your education fostered on awareness of

professional and ethical responsibilities and their application in real situations") were met

133

in 2012-2013 with an average of 4.11 out of 5, respectively comparable with 2011-2012

academic year. However, question 5 (“Your education fostered an understanding of the

history of computer science and the impact of the discipline on relevant social issues”)

did not meet the target as it had an average of only 3.89, below our goal of 4.

Results met indirect measures for this academic year 2012-2013.

Actions:

COSC 1172 is only a one-credit hour course, so we shall consider as an action to include

the number of credit hours for the future indirect measure, (that is, this course will count

only 1/3 of how much will count each of COSC 3325 and CPSC 4360).


We did not initiate any actions last year, so there are no second cycle results to report.

Student Outcome 5: Ethical Standards: Graduates will be able to recognize and

understand the importance of ethical standards as well as their own responsibilities

with respect to the computer profession.


1.Know the differences of various philosophical views on ethics such as deontology,

utilitarianism, egoism, and relativism.

2.Understand the ACM or a similar professional body's code of ethics and principles

underlying those ethics.

3.Honor the property rights of others including copyrights and patents.

4.Demonstrate ability for ethical decision making within the computer profession.

5.Demonstrate knowledge of factors affecting fair resolution of conflicts of interests.

Results:

This is the fourth consecutive year in which both the direct measures, the Student Course

and Instructor Evaluation, the Exit Interview question 9 ("Your education fostered an

awareness of professional and ethical responsibilities and their application in real

situations"), and the Exit Survey question 16 (“I am cognizant of ethical issues and local

and global societal concerns relating to computers in society") were consistent in

achieving their targets.

As for the Alumni Survey, question 9 (“Your education fostered an awareness of

professional and ethical responsibilities and their application in real situations”) was met

in 2012-2013 with an average of 4.11 out of 5, respectively comparable with 2011-2012

academic year.

Actions:

No additional actions are planned for academic year 2012-2013.


We did not initiate any actions last academic year, so there are no second cycle results to

report.

134

Student Outcome 6: Collaborative Work Skills: Graduates will demonstrate the

ability to work effectively in teams to conduct technical work through the exercise of

interpersonal communication skills.


1. Demonstrate the ability to work in heterogeneous environments which are diverse in

gender, ethnicity, and academic accomplishment.

2. Attend team meetings and contribute towards solution of technical problems during the

meetings.

3. Make appropriate contributions within their skill set to the completion of the project.

4. Demonstrate a sense of interdependence with other team members.

Results:

All targets are met of Direct Measures with high scores on all of the criteria. The sample

size is 26, much higher than last academic year’s sample size of 7. CPSC 4340 showed

that the students did not feel they understood how to collaborate in teams. This is an

improvement from last year in the sense that the Indirect Measure for COSC 4302

Student Evaluations matched the Direct measure.

CPSC 4340 has got a flat 3.00 for all questions25 26, 34 and 35. Also, CPSC 4340 has a

small sample size of 6.

The Exit Interview scores matched the expectations for all questions (4, 7, 11, 13 and 14),

except number 8 (“Your education developed in you skill in communication and

cooperation within groups and larger organizations”) which got 3.63 close to the target of

3.75. The Assessment Committee agreed to remove the words “and larger organizations”

from the question as it is not what we intended to measure.

The Alumni Survey scores matched the expectations for all questions (4, 7 ,8, 11 and 14),

except number 13 (“Your education provided a sufficient educational foundation for

leadership roles along future career paths”) which got 3.89 close to the target of 4.0.

Actions:

No actions seem to be indicated from the Indirect and Direct Measures of performance

for Student Outcome 6.


On Direct Measures, the performance has met targets since 2007-2008. No actions were

taken last year. Thus, there are no second cycle results to report.

Dr. Osborne’s assignment was Outcomes 7,8 and 9.

Student Outcome 7: Oral Communications: Graduates will demonstrate their

ability to verbally communicate clearly.


1. Demonstrate the ability to communicate in a given situation.

2. Demonstrate the ability to comprehend what is said and to show an appreciation of the

importance of listening.

3. Communicate clearly at the level of the audience the technical material intrinsic to the

discipline of computer science.

4. Demonstrate knowledge of the communication process.

Results:

135

All targets for the direct measurement of the performance criteria were met for the last

five years until this year when criterion 4 had only 75.7% of the students doing

satisfactory work. The sample space was 27. The criterion was (“Demonstrate knowledge

of the communication process”). On question 34 on the online student evaluations,

(“Students had the opportunity to communicate design and implementation concepts to

professionals and non-professionals”), the target was met. The average was 3.86. We did

not meet targets for Exit Interview question 8 or Alumni Survey question 18.

Actions:

In COSC 4172, we will conduct a review of methods for giving an effective presentation.


None.

Student Outcome 8: Written Communication Skills: Graduates will demonstrate their

ability to write effectively both technical and non-technical materials with appropriate

multimedia aids.


1. Provide an introduction that grabs the attention of readers.

2. Organize documents in terms of a few main points or themes.

3. Choose appropriate illustrations, examples, or evidence to support the written

documents.

4. Write appropriately for specified readers in terms of technical content.

5. Write organized, grammatically correct reports.

Results:

All direct measure targets were met and indirect measure targets were met (except COSC

1172). This was the sixth consecutive year.

Actions: None.


Student Outcome 9: Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning: Graduates will

be able to demonstrate that they can independently acquire new computing related

skills and knowledge in order to pursue either further formal or informal learning

after graduation.


1. Be able to search scholarly publications to assist in resolving problems.

2. Participate in ACM and/or UPE.

3. Intend to engage in additional formal education or participate in employer-related

training or research projects.

4. Participated in Honors Program or in undergraduate research at Lamar. This could be

done in the INSPIRED or STAIRSTEP Programs, Presentations or Posters at

Professional Conferences, COOP or Internship position reports.

Results:

136

Assessment Committee agreed to remove COSC 4172, question 35 as it is not listed in

the syllabus for this course. Targets are all online, Student Evaluation for Outcome 9. The

performance targets of this outcome have not been met for direct measure, missed the

target by .04.

Actions: The Assessment Committee will analyze the rubric used to assess criterion 9.3

to determine if it should be modified to include other elements that would indicate if

students are capable of independent study.


137

Appendix K – Course Schedules 2012-2013

Computer Science Schedule Fall 2012

Instructor Course Course Name Time Day Room CRN

Andrei COSC 5100-01 Graduate Seminar

10:20 - 11:15 F 109 90623

COSC 2336-01 Fundamentals III 12:40-1:35 MWF 111 92801

COSC 3308-01 Programming Languages

9:10 - 10:05 MWF 111 90636

Beard COSC 1371-02 Microcomputers 9:10 - 10:05 MWF 107 90612

COSC 1371-03 Microcomputers 10:20 - 11:15 MWF 107 90613



Doerschuk CPSC 4360-01/

5360-01 Intro Software Engineering

12:45 - 2:05 TR 111 90616/90637

Koh COSC 4301-03 Programming for

Graduate Student

9:35-10:55 TR 111 90638

COSC 5315-01 Foundations of

Computer Science

3:50-5:10 MW 111 90631

Liu CPSC 4330-01/

5330-01 Multimedia Processing

11:30 - 12:25 MWF 109 90622/91637

Makki COSC 1337-01 Fundamentals II 9:35 - 10:55 TR 109 90624

138

Osborne COSC 5369-01 Graduate Project 5:30-6:50 TR 109 90632

COSC 4172-01 Senior Seminar 8:00-9:20 R 109 90627

Roden COSC 4301-

01/COSC 5340-01

Games for Handheld Devices

12:40 - 1:35 MWF 109 93414/ 93415

COSC 1336-01 Fundamentals I 11:30 - 12:25 MWF 107 90611

Bo Sun CPSC 3320-01 Computer Networks

11:10 - 12:30 TR 111 92802

Frank Sun COSC 1371-01 Microcomputers 08:00 - 08:55 MWF 107 90633

Tran COSC 5311-01 Data Mining 11:10 - 12:30 TR 109 92804

Wang COSC 1173-01 Programming

Lab 9:35-10:55 T 213 92805

COSC 1173-02 Programming

Lab 9:35 - 10:55 R 213 90639

COSC 1371-07 Microcomputers 11:10 - 12:30 TR 107 90619

Web Courses


Beard COSC 3321-48F Advanced

Microcomputer Apps WEB *Web 90794

Chiou COSC 1371-48F Microcomputers WEB *Web 90783

COSC 3320-48F Web Design/XHTML WEB *Web 90793

Doerschuk COSC 4301-48F/

5340-48F Machine Learning WEB *Web 92806/92807

139

Koh COSC 1371-49F Microcomputers WEB *Web 90785

Liu COSC 1172-48 Thinking, Speaking,

Writing WEB *Web 90780

COSC 4310-48F Computer Architecture WEB *Web 92812

Makki COSC 1337-48F Fundamentals II WEB *Web 92808

CPSC 4340-48F/ CPSC 5340-48F

Database WEB *Web 92809/92810

Osborne COSC 5328-48 Computer Networks WEB *Web 92813

Sun, Bo COSC 4302-48 Operating Systems WEB *Web 92814

Sun, Frank COSC 4332-48 Programming for Mobile

Devices WEB *Web 93028

Wang COSC 1336-48F Fundamentals I WEB *Web 90782

COSC 1173-48F Programming Lab WEB *Web 92815

COSC 3306-48F C++/Unix WEB *Web 90792

140

Computer Science Schedule Spring 2013


Andrei COSC 5369-01 Graduate Project

11:30-12:25

MWF 111 10259

Beard COSC 1371-02 Microcomputers 09:10 - 10:05

MWF 107 10289

COSC 1371-03 Microcomputers 10:20 - 11:15

MWF 107 10244


MWF 107 10245


MWF 107 10246

Doerschuk CPSC 4370-01/ CPSC 5370-01

Artificial Intelligence

9:35 - 10:55

TR 111 10249 10250

COSC 1336-02 Fundamentals I 12:45 -

2:05 TR 111 14164

Koh COSC 3302-01 Computer

Theory 12:45-2:05 TR 109 14161

COSC 5313-01 Algorithm

Analysis and Design

3:50-5:10pm

MW 111 10254

Liu COSC 5310-01 Adv. Computer

Architecture 10:20-11:15

MWF 111 13995

COSC 4310-01 Computer

Architecture 12:40-1:35 MWF 111 14004

Makki COSC 2336-01 Fundamentals III 10:20-11:15

MWF 109 10253

COSC 1337-01 Fundamentals II 12:40-1:35 MWF 109 10258

Osborne COSC 5302-01 Adv. Operating

Systems 5:30-

7:00pm MW 109 10260

COSC 4172-01 Senior Seminar 3:50-

5:15pm M 109 10261

COSC 5100-01 Graduate Seminar

9:10-10:05 W 111 14921

COSC 4301-01 Programming for

Graduate Student

2:20 - 3:40pm

TR 111 14026

Roden COSC 1336-01 Fundamentals I 11:30-12:25

MWF 109 14160

COSC 4319-01/ COSC 5321-01

Graphics 8:00-8:55 MWF 109 13997 13999

Bo Sun COSC 4302-01 Operating systems

11:10-12:30

TR 111 12859

Frank Sun COSC 1371-01 Microcomputers 9:35-10:55 TR 107 10266

CPSC 4315-01 System

Administration 2:20-

3:40pm TR 109 12858

141

Tran COSC 3304-01 Algorithm

Analysis and Design

9:10-10:05 MWF 109 14002

Wang COSC 1173-01 Programming

Lab 2:20-

3:10pm R 213 14006

COSC 2372-01 Organization &

Assembly 9:35-10:55 TR 109 14003

Web Courses

Instructor Course Course Name CRN

Andrei CPSC 4360-48F/ CPSC 5360-48F

Software Engineering

TBA *Web 13346 13347

COSC 3325-48F Computer Law

and Ethics TBA *Web 14165

Beard COSC 3321-48F Advanced

Microcomputer Application

TBA *Web 14059

Chiou COSC 1371-48F Microcomputers TBA *Web 13338

COSC 3320-48F Web

Design/XHTML TBA *Web 13345

Haynes COSC 4320-48F Advanced Web

Design TBA *Web 14062

Dr. Makki COSC 1337-48 Fundamentals II TBA *Web 13339

Jarrell COSC 3323-48F Fundamentals of

Digital Media TBA *Web 14060

Liu COSC 1172-48 Thinking,

Speaking,Writing TBA *Web 13337

Frank Sun COSC 3301-48F Computer Security

TBA *Web 13342

Wang COSC 1336-48F Fundamentals I TBA *Web 13750

COSC 1173-48F CS1 Lab TBA *Web 14058

COSC 1371-49F Microcomputers TBA *Web 13322

142

Computer Science Two-Year Class Rotation Schedule

o-Spring o-Summer o-Fall e-Spring e-Summer e-Fall Sections Desc Online

COSC class online class online class online class online class online class online

1172

1

1

1

1 4 every long every long

1173 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 14 every

1371 7 2 2 1 7 2 7 2 2 1 7 2 42 every every

1381

1

1 odd summer

odd summer

1336 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 11 every fall

1337 1 1

1 1 1

1 6 every long spring

2336 1

1 1

1 4 every long odd fall

2372 1

1 1

2 spring odd spring

3301

0

3302 1

1

2 spring even

spring

3304 1

1

1 spring

even spring

3306

1

1

1

1 4 long long

3308

1

1 2 fall odd fall

3320

1

1

1

1 4 every long every long

3321

1

1 2 spring spring

3325

1

1

2 spring odd spring

4172 1

1 1

1 4 every long

4301

0

4302 1

1

1

1 4 long even fall

4307

1

1

2 summer

143

4309

1

1 odd summer

4310

1

1 1 fall even fall

4319 1

1

2 even summer

4322

1

1 even summer

4324

1

1 odd summer

4341 1

1 1

1 4 every long

4342 1

1 1

1 4 every long

4345 1

1

2 spring

CPSC class online class online class online class online class online class online

3316 1

1 odd spring

3320

1

1 2 fall even fall

4315 1

1

2 summer

4328

1

1

2 summer

4330

1

1 2 fall ???

4340 1 1

1

1 4 fall & summer even fall

4360

1 1 1

1 4 every spring odd spring

4370

1 1 2 spring odd spring

ELEN class online class online class online class online class online class online

3431

"1"

"1" 0 fall by EE

22 12 10 1 21 9 21 11 10 2 19 11

Sections 34 11 30 32 12 30 149

144

Appendix L – Advisement by STARS

L.1 – Lamar Enrollment Agreement

LAMAR UNIVERSITY I WILL Enrollment Agreement

Students who do not meet the requirements for “unconditional admission” to Lamar University

will be considered on an individual approval basis termed I Will admission. Lamar University is

committed to higher educational opportunity and recognizes that traditional formal admission

requirements are imperfect predictors of student success. Effort, dedication, and related

intangible factors do matter; hence, I Will. Lamar is equally committed to student success and

behaviors indicative of future achievement. I Will students begin their college careers within a

structured higher educational environment specifically created with their needs, the needs of their

fellow students, and the requirements of the university in mind. Lamar University is committed

to providing support for success to I Will students through:

Mandatory advisement and registration: I Will students are required to meet with Undergraduate

Advisement Center advisors at least twice every semester to discuss academic and personal

progress, choose classes, and register. Enrollment hours and course selections are subject to

advisor approval, and I Will students may be required to wait until grades post before enrolling

for future semesters or terms. Upon release from the I Will agreement, students may still be

subject to registration restrictions.

Temporary limits on enrollment: I Will students are limited to a maximum of 14 credit hours in

their first semester.

Texas Success Initiative (TSI) remediation (if required): I Will students who did not pass one or

more of the three test areas for college readiness must be enrolled in at least one of those areas

every semester until fully TSI complete.

Support Services: I Will students are required to participate in support programs and services

offered through Lamar’s Center for Academic Success (“STARS” Center). As appropriate, I Will

students must avail themselves of financial assistance and counseling services offered by the

university.

To continue to matriculate at Lamar University, I Will students must complete the following

requirements during the first semester of enrollment (Please initial after each condition

indicating your understanding):

1. Earn nine college-level credit hours. _____ (initial)

2. Earn a grade of “C” or higher in an English or mathematics course. _____ (initial)

3. Earn a grade of “C” or higher in a study skills course (PEDG 1271 or PSYC 2270).

_____ (initial)

4. Earn a grade of “C” or higher in LMAR 1101 (University Success Seminar). _____

(initial)

5. Have an overall (cumulative) Lamar University grade point average of 2.0 or above.

_____ (initial)

145

6. Not have an outstanding financial obligation (in excess of $50.00) to LU for the

completed semester. _____ (initial)

7. Not have a disciplinary offense, including academic dishonesty (following due process

adjudication). _____ (initial)

8. Meet a minimum of twice a semester with an advisor in the Undergraduate Advisement

Center. _____ (initial)

9. Utilize support programs and services as appropriate and as recommended by an advisor.

_____ (initial)

Student Name (print):

__________________________________________________________________

ID#: ________________________ Semester of entry: ________________________

Attention: Failure to comply with any of the above conditions will result in suspension from

Lamar University without appeal. Students who do not meet I Will conditions may return to

Lamar University only by transferring at least 18 hours with a 2.0 or higher GPA from another

institution. Any exception to admission decisions or conditions requires the approval of the

Associate Vice President for Strategic Enrollment Management. As an I Will student given this

enrollment opportunity, you will be held accountable for the above conditions. Your signature

below indicates that you voluntarily elect to accept enrollment under the guidelines stated in this

agreement.

Student Signature: __________________________________ Date: _____________________

Advisor Signature: __________________________________ Date: _____________________

146

L.2 – Advising Communication Timeline – Fall Semester

Advising Communication Timeline - Fall Semester

September

Early * Email welcome letter to students:

a. Include list of campus resources

b. Remind what good academic standing means (2.0 GPA)

c. Encourage advisor contact for assistance or questions; include phone

number

Mid * Advisors: begin calling students

- Be supportive in asking how classes are going; discuss course

load/syllabi

- Politely remind students of contract requirements and schedule

appointment

- Remind students of the 12th

class day and explain what that means:

a. Students can go to their SSB account and drop a class themselves

b. This drop will NOT count toward the 6-drop rule

c. This is the last day for a full refund of dropped (not withdrawn)

courses

Late *1st Progress Reports requested

October

Early * 1st Progress Reports requested/obtained

* Advisors: follow-up phone calls/emails regarding progress reports

Mid * Advisors: continue calling students and meet with scheduled

appointments

-Inform students the Class Schedule will be available online end of

October

Late * 2nd

Progress Reports requested

* Email letter to students:

a. Encourage students to follow through with contract requirements

b. Schedule a meeting with their advisor; Seek academic assistance

c. Indicate last drop/withdrawal date with academic penalty; spring

advisement begins November 1st; and conditional registration may be

required

November

Early * 2nd

Progress Reports requested/obtained

* Advisors: continue follow-up with students; begin Spring Advisement

- Review Progress Reports with students

- Explain conditional registration, if required

- Confirm phone/email contact information for accuracy and ask

students if they have received prior emails

Mid * Advisors: heavy advisement continues and open registration begins

Late * Advisors: follow-up phone calls/emails

* Email letter to students:

147

a. Remind students of consequences of not fulfilling contract

requirements

b. Encourage students to contact their advisor immediately

December

Early * Advisors: heavy advisement and registration continues

Mid * Email: LU will be closed (list dates); Advisement is mandatory prior to

students being allowed to register; Advisement will resume on (date)

* Begin evaluating grades as they are available

- Contact students about eligibility

* Revise Communication Timeline for the Spring term

148

L.3 – Lamar Retention Programs

College Program or Unit Name

Year of Inception

Description Target Population Funding

Arts & Sciences Dr. Brenda Nichols, Dean

Biology Dr. Matthew Hoch, Department Chair

Chemistry Dr. Paul Bernazzani, Department Chair

Tutoring Tutoring for chemistry students. We target those who are taking a chemistry course.

Local

Computer Science Dr. Lawrence Osborne, Dept. Chair

INSPIRED Stairstep

Have about 10-12 student assistants that work with tutoring and outreach for computer science majors, special focus on underrepresented populations and minorities within this group. Tutoring programs for science related majors.

All computer science majors. Multi-discipline target including math, physics, earth & space sciences, chemistry and computer science

National Science Foundation (NSF) NSF

Earth & Space Sciences Dr. Jim Jordan, Department Chair

Informal Tutoring

On a case-by-case basis try to find upper level students to tutor a student needing assistance in the specific course.

All students in an earth & space science course that requests help from the department.

none

English & Modern Languages Dr. Steven Zani, Department Chair

History Dr. Mary Kelley-Scheer, Dept. Chair

Informal Tutoring

On a case-by-case basis, a graduate student will try to help out with any History course needed.

Any student in a History course.

none

Mathematics Dr. Paul Chiou, Department Chair

Tutoring Lab Mentoring Program

1995 The lab provides free tutorial for students who take lower level mathematics courses including math core courses – College Algebra and Elementary Statistics. Individual faculty members voluntarily serve as mentors for Mathematics majors.

We target those who take lower level mathematics courses including math cores Mathematic majors

Local Funding (tuition and fees) None

149

Nursing Dr. Eileen Curl, Department Chair

The Caring Place 2003 Graduate Assistants provide facilitated learning sessions for students who request/need additional assistance in learning concepts/information. Students sign a contract that they will come to The Caring Place prepared (having read the assignments). Our role is to facilitate and support their active learning, bud we do not spoon feed information to them. Our goal is for them to become active learners who know how to learn.

Our resource is open to all nursing students who have been admitted into our undergraduate ADN and BSN programs.

Initial funding from the THECB grant and support from St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. Now funding is internal through the use of Graduate Assistants.

150

L.4 – Tutor Request Form

Supplemental Appendices ABET Self-Study Report

Documents

Transcript of Supplemental Appendices ABET Self-Study Report