Final   Forms,   1/18/13
1

Course
Semester   assessment   data   gathered
Number   of   sections   offered   in   the   semester
Number   of   sections   assessed
CSCI   10
Fall   2011
1
1
Percentage   of   sections   assessed
Semester   held   “Closing   the   Loop”   discussion
100%
Spring   2012
Faculty   members   involved   in   “Closing   the   Loop”   discussion   1
Form   Instructions:

Part   I:   CLO   Data   Reporting .
For   each   CLO,   obtain   Class   Achievement   data   in   aggregate   for   all   sections   assessed   in   eLumen.

Part   II:   CLO   Reflections .
Based   on   student   success   reported   in   Part   I,   reflect   on   the   individual
CLO.

Part   III:    Course   Reflection.
In   reviewing   all   the   CLOs   and   your   findings,   reflect   on   the   course   as   a   whole.
P
I:    C
‐ L
O
–   D
R
C ONSIDER   T HE   C OURSE ‐ L EVEL   O UTCOMES   I NDIVIDUALLY   ( THE
N UMBER   OF   CLO S   WILL   DIFFER   BY   COURSE

)
Defined   Target
Scores*
(CLO   Goal)
80%     (CLO)   1:
Recognize   the   functionally   and   ease   of   windows   based   user   interface   (IDE)   for   programs   written   in   Visual
Basic.NET
by   selecting   and   understanding   which   of   the   proper   or   available   objects   controls   to   embed   on   the   Form   and   to   code   the   proper   event   that   each   of   those   objects
"detect"   when   the   program   is   executing.
Discuss   the
advantages   of   a   window   based,   event   driven   language   vs.
an   older   "command   line   prompt   language   such   as   C   or   C++.
(CLO)   2:
Using   and   concept   of   loops   (i.e.
for   and   while).
When   is   a
loop   appropriate   to   the   logic   and   which   particular   type   of   loop   is   best   to   use   in   that   situation.
(CLO)   3:
Use   of   graphics,   sound,   mouse   and   timer   based   capabilities   within   a   Visual   Basic   application
(CLO)   4:
80%
75%
Actual   Scores**
(eLumen   data)
85%
75%
85%
2

   If   more   CLOs   are   listed   for   the   course,   add   another   row   to   the   table.
*   Defined   Target   Scores :What   scores   in   eLumen   from   your   students   would   indicate   success   for   this   CLO?
(Example:    75%   of   the   class   scored   either   3   or   4)
**Actual   scores:   What   is   the   actual   percent   of   students   that   meet   defined   target   based   on   the   eLumen   data   collected   in   this   assessment   cycle?
P
II:   C
‐
O
R
A.
C OURSE ‐ L EVEL   O UTCOME   (CLO)   1:
1.
How   do   your   current   scores   match   with   your   above   target   for   student   success   in   this   course   level   outcome?
Windows   based   programming   requires   a   higher   degree   of   skill   and   knowledge   since   it   is   a   more   complex   application.
Most   students   have   an   affinity   to   this   newer   programming
language   and   its   capabilities   vs.
the   more   arcane   older   language’s   grammar   and   syntax
2.
Reflection:    Based   on   the   data   gathered,   and   considering   your   teaching   experiences   and   your   discussions   with   other   faculty,   what   reflections   and   insights   do   you   have?
Since   CSCI   6,   CSCI   10   and   CSCI   19A   are   not   in   the   transfer   core,   they   are   in   a   strict   sense   non ‐ essential   courses.
This   perspective   is   useful   but   we   need   to   temper   it   with   real ‐ world   considerations.
In   a   work   environment,   job   candidates   often   fail   since   that   situation   or   application   tools   do   not   match   what   was   in   the   class   room   or   textbook.
Different   languages,   their   capabilities   and   syntax   give   that   student   the   breath   of   a   wider   world.
Similarly   in   the   transfer   school,   a   student   who   has   not   been   exposed   to   a   variety   of   programming   languages   is   unable   to   pick   up   new   ones   quickly.
For   example   if   the   student   transfers   to   San   Jose   State   they   may   need   to   quickly   pick   up   the   Java   programing   language.
Without   having   taken   some   non   C++   based   course   they   will   find   the   transition   difficult   if   not   impossible.
So   while   it   may   be   productive   to   reallocate   some   FTEF   from   non ‐ transfer   course   to   transfer   courses,   it   would   be   counterproductive   to   do   so   in   excess   or   to   simply   regard   the
non ‐ transfer   courses   as   expendable.
B.
C
OURSE
‐ L
EVEL
O
UTCOME
(CLO)
2:
1.
How   do   your   current   scores   match   with   your   above   target   for   student   success   in   this   course   level   outcome?
About   as   expected.
You   tend   to   see   a   very   good   student   or   a   student   who   is   struggling.
Rarely   do   you   find   a   real   “average”   in   the   middle   type.
2.
Reflection:    Based   on   the   data   gathered,   and   considering   your   teaching   experiences   and   your   discussions   with   other   faculty,   what   reflections   and   insights   do   you   have?
3

It   is   the   preparation,   discipline,   dedication   and   background   of   the   general   population.
The   older,   experienced   ones   who   have   been   in   industry   tend   to   do   far   better   than   the
ones   just   out   of   high   school.
That   is   something   out   of   our   control.
The   better   students   have   gone   directly   to   a   four   year   institution   and   bypassed   the   CC   system.
The   less   prepared   seem   to   have   no   inkling   of   what   is   required   or   the   personal   cost   and   dedication   to   be   a   Computer   Science   major.
We   need   to   do   a   better   job   of   informing   new   students
about   the   commitments   required   to   succeed   as   a   Computer   Science   major.
C.
C OURSE ‐ L EVEL   O UTCOME   (CLO)   3:
1.
How   do   your   current   scores   match   with   your   above   target   for   student   success   in   this   course   level   outcome?
The   students   who   use   the   current   smart   devices   have   an   affinity   and   interests   in   this   capability   as   they   can   relate   to   it.
Students   wonder   “how   is   this   relevant”   when   offered   the   old   style   command ‐ line   interface   of   C++.
CSCI   6,   CSCI   10   and   CSCI   19A   offer   a   more   contemporary   graphical   style   of   programming   so   they   provide   good   complements   to   the   core   transfer   courses   taught   in   C++.
2.
Reflection:    Based   on   the   data   gathered,   and   considering   your   teaching   experiences   and
your   discussions   with   other   faculty,   what   reflections   and   insights   do   you   have?
Students   benefit   from   this   type   of   21 st   century   application   programming   language.
But
unless   motivated   to   do   so,   many   individuals   do   not   explore   for   curiosity’s   sake.
D.
C
OURSE
‐ L
EVEL
O
UTCOME
(CLO)
4:
1.
How   do   your   current   scores   match   with   your   above   target   for   student   success   in   this   course   level   outcome?
N/A
2.
Reflection:    Based   on   the   data   gathered,   and   considering   your   teaching   experiences   and   your   discussions   with   other   faculty,   what   reflections   and   insights   do   you   have?
4

E.
C OURSE ‐ L EVEL   O UTCOME   (CLO)   5:    A DD   IF   NEEDED .
5

P
III:   C
R
F
P
1.
What   changes   were   made   to   your   course   based   on   the   previous   assessment   cycle,   the   prior
Closing   the   Loop   reflections   and   other   faculty   discussions?
In   order   to   work   within   limited   FTEF   we   are   looking   to   Chabot   Community   Ed.
to   offer   courses   of   a   more   vocational   nature.
One   such   course   will   be   offered   this   summer   in
Android   smart   phone   Programming .
2.
Based   on   the   current   assessment   and   reflections,   what   course ‐ level   and   programmatic   strengths   have   the   assessment   reflections   revealed?
What   actions   has   your   discipline   determined   might   be   taken   as   a   result   of   your   reflections,   discussions,   and   insights?
Reallocating   some   FTEF   from   the   non ‐ core   courses   to   the   transfer   sequence.
But   just   shuffling   courses   is   a   long   term   solution.
We   hope   additional   FTEF   will   be   available   in   coming
years   to   support   growth   of   the   program.
3.
What   is   the   nature   of   the   planned   actions   (please   check   all   that   apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical
 Resource   based
 Change   to   CLO   or   rubric
 Change   to   assessment   methods
 Other:___ None   of   the   above _______________________________________
6

Considering   your   feedback,   findings,   and/or   information   that   has   arisen   from   the   course   level   discussions,   please   reflect   on   each   of   your   Program   Level   Outcomes.
Program:   __Computer   Science______________________________________________
 PLO   #1: Transfer   preparation :   Prepare   students   for   transfer   to   a   four   year   college   and   successful   completion   of   upper   division   courses   in   Computer   Science.
This   PLO   primarily   involves   the   course   sequence   CSCI   7,   CSCI   14,   CSCI   15,   CSCI   20,   CSCI   21   and   secondarily   CSCI   10,   CSCI   19A   and   CSCI   41.
Produce   a   transfer   ready   Computer   Science   major   that   has   a   very   solid   foundation   to   succeed   at   the   Junior   and   Senior   level.
This   is   manifested   by   the   eLumen   SLOs   for   each   of   our   courses.
 PLO   #2: Programming   Fluency :   Logical   thinking   and   standard   methodology   to   determine   a   logical   solution   or   process.
What   factors   in   the   assignment   or   task   govern   your   use   of   various   options   within   the   language?
Cover   the   major   standard   capabilities   in   the   programming   language   such   as   arrays,   looping,   decision   making   structures,   input/output,   data   file   processing   and   manipulations,   memory   pointers   and   sorting,   for   example.
The   PLO   relates   to   all   programming   courses.
Get   the   students   through   the   program   as   quickly   and   efficiently   as   possible   and   provide   them   with   as   wide   a   range   of   languages   as   possible   (i.e.
UNIX   environment,   basic   Microsoft
Windows,   Microsoft   Office   Suite,   C/C++,   Python,   Visual   Basic,   Java   for   example).
We   no   longer   teach   HTML   or   any   web   based   capabilities   in   a   web   based   world.
What   questions   or   investigations   arose   as   a   result   of   these   reflections   or   discussions?
A   student   is   transfer   ready   only   if   that   have   taken   the   core   transfer   sequence   (CSCI   14,   15,   20,
21)   AND   been   exposed   to   at   least   two   other   high   level   programming   languages   besides   C++,   for
example   Java   in   CSCI   19A   and   Python   in   CSCI   7.
What   program ‐ level   strengths   have   the   assessment   reflections   revealed?
Strengths   revealed:   We   produce   a   number   of   students   that   seem   to   do   well   in   their   transfer   but   that   is   by   word   of   mouth   and   cannot   be   proven   due   to   privacy   laws   and   lack   of   information/data.
Reports   from   CSUEB   indicate   that   our   students   do   quite   well   in   the
Computer   Science   major.
What   actions   has   your   discipline   determined   might   be   taken   to   enhance   the   learning   of   students   completing   your   program?
Actions   planned:   Provide   learning   assistants   for   the   lab   component   of   classes.
7