SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form Academic Year

Transcription

1 SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form Academic Year Department: Computer Science Program: BSCS College: Science Program Website: Link to Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) on program website: Program Accreditation (if any): ABET accredited Contact Person and Chris Tseng, Date of Report: June 1, 2016 Part A 1. List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) Upon graduation, successful graduates of the BSCS program will attain the following program learning outcomes (PLOs): (a) An ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics to solve problems (b) An ability to analyze a problem, and identify and define the computing requirements appropriate to its solution (c) An ability to design, implement, and evaluate a computer based system, process, component, or program to meet desired needs (d) An ability to function effectively on teams to accomplish a common goal (e) An understanding of professional, ethical, legal, security and social issues and responsibilities (f) An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences (g) An ability to analyze the local and global impact of computing on individuals, organizations, and society (h) Recognition of the need for and an ability to engage in continuing professional development (i) An ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for computing practice (j) An ability to apply mathematical foundations, algorithmic principles, and computer science theory in the modeling and design of computer based systems in a way that demonstrates comprehension of the tradeoffs involved in design choices

2 (k) An ability to apply design and development principles in the construction of software systems of varying complexity 2. Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULGs) Each PLO is being mapped to one or more ULG and vice versa. BSCS PLOs to ULGs map PLO/ULG ULG1 Specialized Knowledge ULG2 Broad Integrative Knowledge ULG3 Intellectual Skills ULG4 Applied Knowledge ULG5 Social and Global Responsibilities (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) 3. Alignment Matrix of PLOs to Courses Matrix of PLOs to Courses in BSCS BSCS Outcomes Courses (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) Math 1 1 Physics 1 Support Courses Science 1 CS 100W Phil A 1 C 2 D GE Courses E R S V

3 CS 46A CS 46B CS CS CS Required CS Courses CS 49C/J CS CS CS CS CS DEEP Electives CS E E E E E E E 1: Indicating Beginner level, 2: Intermediate level, 3: Advanced level Course assessed (cells in color): CS100W, Phil134, CS146, CS151, and CS Planning Assessment Schedule We follow a 2 year assessment cycle in which each PLO will be assessed once according the following schedule matrix. Year 1 Spring (odd year) Year 1 Fall (odd year) Year 2 Spring (even year) Year 2 Fall (even year) Year 3 Spring (odd year) PLO a PLO b PLO c PLO d PLO e PLO f PLO g PLO h PLO i PLO j PLO k 5. Student Experience Students and general public can access the PLO and ULG as well as other relevant assessment information online under the department homepage. In particular, the following information is available online. University Learning Goal (ULG) for BSCS can be found under the following website: BSCS PLOs and ULGs are posted at the websites:

4 All courses include related PLOs in their syllabi. Students can view course syllabus under the department website: /index.html. We conduct regular annual alumni survey to solicit student feedback. It is used to provide feedback to PLOs and our overall program for the consideration of improvement. A recent senior result summary can be found in (6) of Part B. Part B 6. Assessment Data and Results Each of PLO is assessed by one upper division course. Each of these assessed courses defines a set of Course Learning Objectives (CLOs) or performance indicators. A set of rubrics is established for the assessment of each CLO. According to the assessment schedule in Section 4, the course instructor generates a Course Assessment Report (CAR). The rubrics, the associated CLOs and PLOs are presented in CARs. The data presented in CARs for each course are used to produce the Outcome Assessment Report (OAR) every two years. The OARs collectively address achievement of PLOs and also recommend actions. Five student outcomes a, h, i, j, and k were assessed in through CS146 and CS160. The CARs generated for the latest assessment cycle are attached as appendices. Students final exam, midterm exam, team project reports, and other relevant material are used as basis for rubrics in evaluating the learning outcomes. In addition to the regular PLO assessment, CS100W was assessed for GE assessment need. A new certificate program on cybersecurity was also assessed for program improvement purposes. We also conducted annual senior survey to collect students input on each of the PLOs and overall program. The result is as shown in the attachment file named SeniorExitSurvey2016.pdf.

5 7. Analysis Based on the data and summary of the CARs, all 5 PLOs assessed have been achieved. The changes proposed during the latest assessment cycle are listed in Section 8. These proposed changes will be evaluated and prioritized for the implementation in the coming academic year. Particular findings for each of the PLO assessed are summarized as follows. PLO (a): Based on the data collected, computing the running time of an algorithm or an operation of a data structure in different situations is a subject that many students struggle. It is even worse when students are only given the pseudocode to start with. PLO (h): Students did very well in outcome h. As noted in the 2013 Fall assessment report on this PLO, emphasis on introducing an area of lack of expertise and continuous professional development was desired. It was mentioned in the previous assessment report that instructors are encouraged to introduce and guide students to new topics to solve assigned problems. This suggestion was taken and put to practice in this assessment cycle. Not only were students able to work out project problems with minimal guidance from instructors on new needed skill, they also recognized and agreed there is a need for continuous professional development. This kind of training serves well to transition students from classroom setting to real life software engineer environment in which one must learn and apply new skill as needed to solve problems. So the gap identified in the last assessment is removed based on the suggested change in the instruction approach. This results in much better learning outcome result in this assessment cycle. PLO (i): This outcome has no imminent issue. Most students appeared to be doing well in the basic usages of software tools. It will be of interest to see if instructors can expose students to more functionalities and features beyond the basic in software tools. Things like using the same tool for other programming languages and settings will be suitable to be introduced to students in this course. PLO (j): Based on the data collected, most students can realize well the theoretical basis for a real life problem. However, comparing or choosing a more efficient solution among two choices to solve a problem appears to be challenging for more than 3/4 of the students. PLO (k): One thing of interest in outcome k is about software testing. As software testing becomes a norm for higher software quality, students need to have a good understanding of the concept, tools, and hands on practice of software testing methodologies. 8. Proposed changes and goals (if any) The proposed changes and/or goals for each of the PLO assessed is listed as follows. PLOs (a) and (j): Students who took CS46B in SJSU have a better foundation in data structures. They also understand better the running time of simple loops and methods than many transfer students. Transfer students lack the basic understanding of fundamental data structures and how to use pseudocode. The instructor in charge of assessing this outcome recommended having a challenge test for all students that wish to enroll CS146 to make sure that students have relevant fundamental concepts before signing up this class.

6 PLO (h): We have implemented an action item proposed in the last assessment report and proved it is useful and successful as indicated in the latest assessed data. This proposition is on encouraging students to solve assigned problems on new topics with minimal guidance from the instructor. This simulated environment is important to transition students from classroom setting to real life team work and hands on learning in industry as software engineers. PLO (i): It is advised for instructors to expose students to more functionalities and features beyond the basic in software tools. We will see how this expanded feature initiative in software tools would affect student learning outcome in the next assessment cycle. PLO (k): It is recommended that instructors put more emphasis on the last stage of software process, i.e., software testing. This expected to help students better prepared for their industry career. We will observe how this recommendation affect student learning and collect student feedback on this emphasis in the next assessment cycle. Part C Proposed Changes and Goals : A sub topic in their analyses outlines will be implemented for outcomes e and g in Phil134 to help all students understand problems their proposed policy solutions might cause: a mapping of cause/effect of their proposed solutions : For outcome k, we propose to put more learning emphasis on the last stage of software process, i.e., software testing, to better prepare students for their industry career : It is recommended all students should take a placement test before enrolling in CS146. This will ensure enrolling students to have proper pre requisite fundamental concepts. Status Update This implementation to Case Analyses Outlines will be added by Fall 16 To be implemented in and assessed in 2017 Fall. To be discussed in department meetings in Fall 2016 for possible adoption and implementation.