Computer Science Assessment Report, 1999

Summary of data:

Assessment data from fall and spring of l998/99 includes faculty ratings of student performance in several senior-level Classes and student self-ratings on the same items. The data shows the mean and standard deviation for the ratings (On a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being the highest) for each of the learning outcomes. There is also an overall mean and standard deviation. Since this is the first round of data collected under the current assessment plan, it will be used as a baseline for future comparisons. Several comments regarding the data are in order.

Curriculum:

Faculty ratings of student performance were all in the mid-to-high range, most at 5 or greater on a scale of 1-7. This suggests that the current curriculum is achieving the desired learning goals. The standard deviations are also quite low for most of the learning objectives, which suggests that there is not a great difference in student accomplishments for the desired outcomes.

Student self-ratings via the exit questionnaires were consistently higher than faculty ratings for the same learning outcomes and the standard deviations were consistently lower. This may indicate a disparity between faculty perceptions and student perceptions of student performance. This may be due to the fact that faculty ratings include many juniors and that the student self-ratings are only from graduating seniors. This could indicate that there is an actual gain from the junior to the senior year and that the higher self-ratings do correctly reflect actual performance. Also, the student self-ratings are done alter the students have had an internship. The higher performance ratings given after an internship could indicate a perception on the part of the student that our curriculum did in fact give them those skills which are needed to perform at a high level in a real world situation.  In fact, anecdotal evidence from performance evaluations given by internship supervisors consistently indicates a superior performance by our students in both their technical abilities and their ability to communicate with others in both the technical and the non-technical domains.

Budgeting:

The current results seem to indicate that our students are achieving high performance levels in the learning objectives. In order to maintain these results, we must continually monitor not only our curriculum, but also those resources that enable us to appropriately deliver that curriculum. Since the COMS major is very technologically oriented, maintaining and upgrading our technological (both hardware and software) and human resources is fundamental to insuring that our students continue to develop high performance levels in the learning objectives.  Hence we will continue to seek institutional support for more equipment and more faculty.

Retention, recruitment and public relations:

These assessment results are very encouraging and can be used to inform prospective students that our majors are performing at a high level in the desired learning outcomes. This is confirmed by both our graduating seniors and by internship supervisors who have observed their performance in real world situations.

Possible assessment plan revisions:

The CSIS department plans to reassess its entire assessment plan. A major revision we are considering is to see if it is possible to assess the CIS and MIS majors together using a single assessment vehicle rather than to assess each major separately.
 

NOTE: Copies of data can be obtained from the assessment coordinator or the Computer Science and Information Systems Department.