# Project Additional Mathematics Work 3 - Excel

Document Sample

```					Program Outcomes Assessment
Program B.S, B.A., Minor in Computer Science
Department Mathematical Sciences
College/School College of Arts & Sciences
CIP Coordinator Kenrick Mock
TABLE 1
PROGRAM OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Current
Outcomes Indicators                                                                  5 Year Trend Data
Year

Computer Science

Weighted Average
ETS Field Test in
Capstone Project
Evaluations

Exit Survey

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

2002/2003

2003/2004

Grade               A-                 NG                C+              B+                                         B+          B+          B+              A         4     0     F
Students should develop oral
1   communications skills consistent with a          Value            3.81                                    2.40           3.34                                        3.33        3.27        3.34            A-        3.7   0.2   F+
career in CS.
Weight            1.00                                    0.50                                                                                               B         3     0.7   D-
Published Program Outcomes

Grade               A-                 NG                C+              B+                                         B+           B          B+              B-        2.7   0.9   D
Students should develop written
2   communication skills consistent with a           Value            3.70                                    2.40           3.27                                        3.4         3.03        3.27            B+        3.3   1.2   D+
career in CS.
Weight            1.00                                    0.50                                                                                               C         2     1.6   C-

Grade                 A                NG                B+              A-                                          A          B+          A-              C-        1.7   1.9   C
Students should demonstrate abilities
3   in critical thinking, problem solving and        Value            3.88                                    3.27           3.68                                        3.94        3.26        3.68            C+        2.3   2.2   C+
analysis skills, and software design.
Weight            1.00                                    0.50                                                                                               D         1     2.6   B-

Grade               A-                   B-              B-                B                                         A           B           B              D-        0.7   2.9   B
Students should demonstrate abilities
4       in software development and                  Value            3.66                 2.92               2.83           3.20                                        3.91          3         3.2             D+        1.3   3.2   B+
implementation.
Weight            1.00                 1.00               0.50                                                                                               F         0     3.6   A-

Grade             NG                       B             B-              B+                                                                 B+              F+        0.3   3.9   A
Students should demonstrate basic
coverage of core concepts in CS,               Value                                 3.48               2.83           3.26                                        n/a         n/a         3.26            NG
including algorithms, data structures,
5
concepts of programming languages,
operating systems, and computer               Weight                                 1.00               0.50
organization and architecture.

Students should demonstrate basic               Grade             NG                       B             B-                B                                                                  B
understanding of theoretical
Value                                 3.12               2.76           3.00                                        n/a         n/a           3
6   foundations of CS including discrete
mathematics, algorithm analysis, and
computability.                       Weight                                 1.00               0.50

Blank and shaded = Tool does not measure this published outcome.

Weights:   0.5 = Tool gives anecdotal indication of published outcome.

1 = Tool is a good measure of the published outcome

200203 CE432 Section 601 Assessment.xls
Program Outcomes Assessment Discussion
Program B.S, B.A., Minor in Computer Science
Department Mathematical Sciences
College/School College of Arts & Sciences
CIP Coordinator Kenrick Mock

TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF OUTCOME ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Overall, we are pleased with our assessment results. Based on overall score on the ETS field exam, the program ranked above
84% of other universities. In addition to these positive exam results we believe the students also demonstrated high-quality work
on their capstone projects.

Outcome                 Result                                                             Explanation of the Results
Students should develop oral                 This grade is based primarily on faculty assessment of the capstone project. The faculty were mostly impressed with the oral presentations
1        communications skills consistent      B+      this semester -- all students received grades of "A" or "B", with a majority of students receiving an "A" grade. The student survey indicates
with a career in CS.                     that students felt that this was one of the weaker outcomes of the program compared to others.

This grade is based primarily on faculty assessment of the capstone project. The faculty were generally impressed with the written reports
Students should develop written
this semester -- most students received grades of "A" or "B", with a majority of students receiving an "A" grade. Similar to the outcome
2         communication skills consistent      B+
regarding oral communication skills, the student survey indicates that students felt that this was one of the weaker outcomes of the program
with a career in CS.
compared to others.

Students should demonstrate
This grade is based primarily on faculty assessment of the capstone project. The faculty were impressed with the design and analysis skills
abilities in critical thinking,
3                                              A-      exhibited in most of the capstone projects. The students rated this outcome highest on the survey (3.27, the next closest rating was 2.84),
problem solving and analysis
despite some comments that the CS program should spend more effort teaching design.
skills, and software design.

This outcome was measured by all three assessment tools. Faculty felt that students did an excellent job on their capstone projects,
Students should demonstrate                  awarding an average grade of "A-". The ETS field exam also indicated that students did good work -- UAA's average score in this area
4        abilities in software development      B      ranks the school in the 73rd percentile (i.e. scored higher than 73% of other universities on the exam). Interestingly, despite programming
and implementation.                   one of the foci of the program, students rated the program lower in this area than design and analysis. Some of the comments indicate this
may be due to a stronger emphasis on theory and fundamentals as opposed to certifications and more current tech skills.

Students should demonstrate
basic coverage of core concepts
This outcome was measured by the ETS field exam and the exit survey. UAA received the strongest grade in this area from the ETS exam,
in CS, including algorithms, data
ranking above 87% of other universities. Comments from students seemed to concur that the program emphasized algorithms and data
5             structures, concepts of          B+
structures. However, students rated the program's performance in this area lower than that of design and critical thinking skills. The ETS
programming languages,
results for this outcome seem to indicate that students learned this material better than they believed.
operating systems, and computer
organization and architecture.

Students should demonstrate
basic understanding of
This outcome was measured by the ETS field exam and the exit survey. On the ETS exam UAA ranked above 78% of other universities.
theoretical foundations of CS
6                                               B      However, students felt that the program only delivered "Good" performance in this area. The ETS results for this outcome seem to indicate
including discrete mathematics,
that students learned this material better than they believed.
algorithm analysis, and
computability.
Program Improvement Recommendations Based on Assessment
Program B.S, B.A., Minor in Computer Science
Department Mathematical Sciences
College/School College of Arts & Sciences
CIP Coordinator Kenrick Mock

TABLE 3
PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON ASSESSMENT

Rec. No.                                   Recommendation                                      Outcome(s)            Rationale for the Recommendation                                  Resource Implications                                      Action Taken

In the CS A470 course, many students that enrolled had
not yet taken other CS courses that would have been      Additional faculty time and effort to advise students        Staff and faculty have encouraged students to
very helpful in developing their projects. Better degree accordingly.
planning might alleviate this problem.                                                                                assign an advisor based upon last name of the
student.
Increase the emphasis on oral and written communication exercises throughout                  Improve written and oral communication skills exhibit by
2                                                                                              1,2                                                                Additional faculty time for curriculum development.          More upper-division courses include written
and oral presentation components
Ensure students have been exposed to design and
Some design and analysis in CS A201, more
3          Increase the emphasis on design and analysis earlier in the curriculum.             3,4       analysis techniques prior to tackling the capstone         Additional faculty time for curriculum development.
in CS A203
project.

Many students enrolled in software engineering after
completing the capstone course. Ideally, students
should enroll in software engineering first to ensure
Align CS A470 with CS A401, software engineering, in terms of content and                     knowledge of project management and software                                                                          CS A401 was moved to Fall and CS A470 to
4                                                                                              ALL                                                                  Additional faculty time for curriculum development.
scheduling.                                                                                   development techniques during the capstone project.                                                                   Spring to alleviate this problem.
Student comments regarding lack of software
engineering probably had not taken the software
engineering course yet.

Continue to use the ETS Major Field Test in CS as an additional assessment                    The major field test directly measures student             ETS charges approximately \$30 per exam, with a total
5                                                                                              5,6                                                                                                                             Implemented in 2003.
tool.                                                                                         understanding of core material on a global scale.          estimated cost between \$400-\$600.
Students currently have no mechanism to provide            Additional faculty/staff time to collect and analyze the
6          Continue to use the exit survey as an additional assessment tool.                   ALL                                                                                                                             Implemented in 2003.
feedback on the program as a whole.                        results.

Faculty not closely involved with the project had a hard
Use a panel of CS faculty only for outcomes 1-2. The supervising faculty alone                time accurately assessing design, analysis, and
7                                                                                             1,2,3,4                                                               None.                                                      Implemented in 2003.
is responsible for outcomes 3-4.                                                              implementation. The supervising faculty is best able to
assess each project.

The facilities ultimately impact all outcomes. The
Improvements here will require funding for equipment,
8          Seek ways to upgrade the laboratory facilities with cutting-edge equipment          ALL       student survey gave the facilities the lowest ranking (2.4
furniture, and space that we currently do not have.
out of a scale of 1-5 where 5 is best) of the survey.

6036b24d-1eba-455a-88d8-07318cb15ec6.xls
Raw Assessment Data, 2003-2004

Student             Faculty Average     Overall Averages
1    Outcome 1     2.57
Outcome 2     3.67              Outcome 1          3.81
Outcome 3     4.00              Outcome 2          3.70
Outcome 4     3.85              Outcome 3          3.88
Outcome 4          3.66
2    Outcome 1      4.00
Outcome 2      3.90
Outcome 3      4.00
Outcome 4      4.00

3    Outcome 1      3.80
Outcome 2      4.00
Outcome 3      4.00
Outcome 4      3.30

4    Outcome 1      3.90
Outcome 2      3.67
Outcome 3      4.00
Outcome 4      4.00

5    Outcome 1      4.00
Outcome 2      4.00
Outcome 3      4.00
Outcome 4      4.00

6    Outcome 1      3.80
Outcome 2      3.90
Outcome 3      4.00
Outcome 4      4.00

7    Outcome 1      3.90
Outcome 2      3.67
Outcome 3      4.00
Outcome 4      3.00

8    Outcome 1      4.00
Outcome 2      3.43
Outcome 3      3.70
Outcome 4      4.00

9    Outcome 1      3.80
Outcome 2      3.80
Outcome 3      3.00
Outcome 4      3.30

10   Outcome 1      3.90
Outcome 2   3.43
Outcome 3   3.30
Outcome 4   3.70

11   Outcome 1   4.00
Outcome 2   4.00
Outcome 3   4.00
Outcome 4   4.00

12   Outcome 1   3.90
Outcome 2   3.67
Outcome 3   4.00
Outcome 4   3.70

13   Outcome 1   3.67
Outcome 2   3.33
Outcome 3   4.00
Outcome 4   3.00

14   Outcome 1   3.90
Outcome 2   3.77
Outcome 3   4.00
Outcome 4   3.70

15   Outcome 1   3.90
Outcome 2   3.23
Outcome 3   4.00
Outcome 4   3.30

16   Outcome 1   4.00
Outcome 2   3.77
Outcome 3   4.00
Outcome 4   3.70
ETS Field Test Results - Computer Science

Student             Total Score (120-200)
1                        155
2                        132
3                        162
4                        175
5                        175
6                        164
7                        162
8                        159
9                        127
10                        157
11                        175
12                        164
13                        175
14                        176
15                        146
16                        164

Average =          160.5             Nationwide Average=148.8
Median=              163             Nationwide Median = 149.9
StDev=      14.8593405
SE=                 3.83
Nationwide Percentile = 84%

Other Data

Gender        Male                11
Female               5

Ethnicity     Am. Indian           2
Asian                3
White               11

Education     Junior               1
Senior              14
Other                1

Transfer      Yes                  7
Student       No                   9

Enrollment    Fulltime            13
Parttime             3

English       Yes                 11
Best Lang?    No                   5

GPA           2.5-2.99             2
3.0-.3.49            7
3.5-4                7
Education   Bachelor    5
Planned     Master      6
Doctoral    3
Undecided   2

CS GPA      2.5-2.99    2
3.0-3.49    6
3.5-4       8
Range=0-100
ETS Assessment Indicators   Program Outcome       UAA Ave     National Ave     National Percentile

Programming Fundamentals              4                   60.3          51.2                         73
Computer Org/Arch/OS                  5                   43.3          32.3                         87
Algorithms/Theory/Math                6                   55.8          43.2                         78

de Average=148.8                       Number of Instutions: 133
e Median = 149.9

2.92
3.48
3.12
Exit Survey Results      1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Excellent, 5=Outstanding

Student      Outcome 1   Outcome 2   Outcome 3   Outcome 4   Outcome 5   Outcome 6   Advising   Instruction
1      4           4           4           4           3           4           4          4
2      4           4           4           3           4           4           2          4
3      4           3           4           4           4           4           3          4
4      3           3           5           3           4           4           4          3
5      3           3           4           4           3           2           3          4
6      3           3           4           4           4           4           4          4
7      2           3           4           3           3           3           4          4
8      2           3           5           3           3           3           3          3
9      3           3           3           3           3           2           3          3
10      3           3           4           4           4           5           5          4
11      2           1           4           4           4           3           3          3
Ave      3           3           4.09        3.55        3.55        3.45        3.45       3.64
ScaledAve   2.40        2.40        3.27        2.84        2.84        2.76        2.76       2.91

Students graduated with a BA or BS in CS: 14
Facilities   Labs   Other Data
4            4
2            2      Has Job:   Yes            5
3            3                 No             6
3            3
3            3      Recommend UAA to others
4            4
3                              Yes            8
2            2                 No
3            3                 Maybe          3
4            4
2            2
3            3
2.40         2.40

UAA Strengths

Software development, database management
Confident in my software development skills
Confident in my skills in design and analysis, database, management

Anything taken from Dr. O'Leary and Dr. Mock gave me a lot
Working in a group, e.g. CS401 and to a lesser extent, CS303
Lots of algorithms and data structures

A wide array of classes are offered

Classes were small and students got personal time with the teachers

Classes were well structured with teachers staying to that structure the
semester

Working in small groups and teams
Positive feedback from other disciplines assisted my determination
Discipline, Creativity, Organization
Intro to latest technology/software at early stages (e.g. VB.NET/PHP)
Dedication of the faculty and decision to give freedom of choice in projects

Programs are designed to provide hands-on experience for dev and research

Small class size allows you to get to know your classmates and teachers
Areas of Improvement / Suggestions

Real-world projects with companies
CS Students should be exposed to newest technologies
Not so much in CS, but a number of professors with expectations far too low.
This does not inspire student learning and instead encourages them to slack off
and do the least amount of work required.
More software engineering, additional required CS course
Not enough design of software
Does not encourage students to learn to program without relying on GUI tools.
Forcing students to use standard text editors and compile programs themselves,
they learn much more than with GUI-based IDEs. IDE's are fine but they cause
a reliance on them that is hard to break.
Not enough teachers, with only taking classes with three teachers it is hard to
get a different perspective of the computer science field.
If there were more teachers and classes it would be nice to be able to choose
some kind of emphasis in the CS program like how the program was structured
before

Some topics not covered well were Thread/Network/DB/Directory programming
Conversion of CS470 to a "normal" course a great improvement
Woeful state of CS470 and lack of structure has been addressed
Cannot say which improvements are still needed
Glad to see UAA has expanded its CS curriculum and strengthened core
classes

Introduction of courses broad in nature, like intro software using SPSS/SAS

Focus on real world tech, e.g. hardware/networking, pass vendor certification

Focus on derivative CS areas like Web Dev, Multimedia, Medical Technology
Do not hire temporary faculty, they have no teaching skills
Introduce summer courses directed toward professional certifications
Invite recruiters so students have goal/focus on learning
More faculty, more choices, better funding
Overall UAA bureaucracy hard to deal with
Consistency - in one year with two profs teaching the same class, one will be
really hard and the other is really easy and everyone gets A's
I would recommend taking classes from certain professors, some of them really
work hard to help you and to teach you. It really made a big difference in my
education and I am very thankful for what they taught me.
Program Level Outcome Assessment Spreadsheet Instructions
Applicable to the 2002/2003 Academic Year
Version 0.1 edited: 2/14/2003

Introduction
The intent of this spreadsheet is to provide a means for each program to present the results of their
assessment processes in a systematic fashion that is comparable to the reports of all other programs on
campus.
It is anticipated that the first use of this spreadsheet will be somewhat burdensome but that subsequent
uses will involve a minimum of effort to accomplish the assessment. Please request assistance from the
Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs (AVPAA) in the Office of Academic Affairs if you have
questions or require assistance in understanding these tables.

It is assumed that there are within your program sufficient spreadsheet skills to edit the required tables. If

To aid you in filling out this table, comments have been scattered throughout the spreadsheets. You can
get rid of these by right clicking on the cell the comment is attached to then either hiding or deleting the
comment. We have also included sample data from the Civil Engineering program as an example of how
the tables are to be used. Edit the entries to match your program.
The edited version of this spreadsheet for each course is to be submitted to the AVPAA by June 1st of each
year.

Instructions
When setting up the spreadsheet, change the name of the file to reflect the program that it is being used to
assess. Please use the same naming convention.

Edit the information in the upper left hand corner of the sheet tabbed: Outc Results.

Instructions                                                                   Editing Frequency

Sheet tab: Outc Results

Table 1: Assessment of Program Outcomes

Published Program Outcomes:
Edit ONLY when program outcomes in the
Edit this part of the table to match the program outcomes that you have currently listed in your program's        assessment plan change. This should be a rare
assessment plan. You will probably need to add and delete rows here.                                               event that includes input from your constituent
groups.
Outcome Indicators:
Edit ONLY when you add or delete assessment
Edit this part of the table to match the assessment tools that you have currently listed in your program's         tools in your assessment plan. This should be
assessment plan. You will probably need to add and delete columns here.                                           done only with input from the program faculty and
possibly the constituent groups.
This is the "grade" that your assessment tool would indicate for performance relative to the associated
outcome. In some cases, this grade can be determined by some computational procedure that compares
Edit these EVERY YEAR. This is what your tools
the results of the assessment to some expected performance value. In many cases, this will be a judgment
call by the program faculty based on what they are seeing in the data and/or experience that came out of
the application of the indicated assessment process.
The grades enter into the spreadsheet should meet the standard listed as follows:
A = Honor grade; indicates comprehensive mastery of the outcome. Performance is exemplary. There is
no way to improve performance on this outcome.
B = Indicates a high level of performance in meeting the outcome. Performance is more than acceptable
but is not exemplary.
C = Indicates a satisfactory level of performance in meeting the outcome. Performance relative to this
outcome meets minimum standards.
D = Indicates that some level of performance has been achieved but that the level achieved is not
acceptable.
F = Indicates failure to achieve this outcome in any reasonable sense.
NG = No Grade. The assessment tools are not used to measure the associated outcome.

Plus and Minuses may be added to the grades to indicate degrees of accomplishment.

NOTE: A grade MUST be assigned to each cell or an error will result. All grades are upper case and
without spaces before, within, or after.

Values:

The values entered here correspond the the grades entered on the line above. The scale is a 4.0 scale.
These are automatically computed values. There
The associated values are: A = 4.0, B = 3.0, C = 2.0, D = 1.0, F = 0.0. A PLUS adds 0.3 to the grade
is no need to edit.
value. A MINUS subtracts 0.3 from the grade value.

Weights:
It is recognized that not all indicators are as significant as others when evaluating performance. The
"weights" allow you to give different weight to each indicator. In general a "1" should be used for any
indicator that is a strong indication of performance on a particular outcome. A "0.5" should be used for           This should not change unless your assessment
indicators that are not as strong or are anecdotal in nature. For example, if your assessment tool did not          tools change or there is a change in opinion of
return good results for reasons such as low return, it did not measure accurately for some reason, or any         the program faculty concerning the applicability of
other reason that makes the results suspect or of lesser value, you should enter a 0.5 for that                                        the tool.
measurement. If you have a high degree of confidence in the correlation between the results of the
assessment and the associated outcome then enter a 1.0.
Current Year Results:

These cells contain the weighted average of all the tool results for a given outcome. Particularly verify that    These are automatically computed values. There
all tools are accounted for if you added to the list of tools. These weighted averages will be mapped to the       is no need to edit unless columns were added
university outcomes and matched with similar results from other programs.                                              that do not appear in final computation.

5 Year Trend Data:
It is important to follow trends, particularly when working with the imprecise data of assessment. This part of    Edit EVERY YEAR, including the data from the
the table should go back up to five years if you have such data available.                                                     prior assessments

Sheet Tab: Outc Analysis

Table 2: Analysis of Outcome Assessment Results
The purpose of this table is to provide analysis on the meaning of the results listed in Table 1. As an
alternate, a word processing document can be provided (electronically) that accomplishes the same                 Edit EVERY YEAR. This is section interprets the
purpose. This table gives the program's interpretation of the results and explains the significance of the                    current year's results
results.
If an alternate word processing document is used, please provide it in a format compatible with the latest
version of MS Word. The discussion must be made relative to each outcome individually. Also include the
corresponding resulting numerical value and grade from table.

Sheet Tab: Recommendations

Table 3: Program Improvement Recommendations Based on Assessment
This table is a critical part of the improvement process. After discussing the results of your assessments
with your constituent groups, it is time to recommend improvements to the program. Recommendations
need to be recorded and tracked.                                                                                               Update EVERY YEAR.
Record all improvement recommendations based on the current year's assessment. Identify the outcomes
that the improvement recommendation is intended to enhance. Some rationale for the proposed action is
suggested to tie the recommendation to the issues discussed in Table 2.
State the resource implications associated with each suggestion.

Also include all prior year recommendations that have not been previously completed. For the
recommendations listed in prior years, indicate the action that was taken to implement the recommendation.

```
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
 views: 22 posted: 7/12/2011 language: English pages: 15
Description: Project Additional Mathematics Work 3 document sample
How are you planning on using Docstoc?