Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment
activities for this year.
Academic Year of Report: 2010 – 2011
Department: Computer Science
College: COTS
Program: Bachelor of Science
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
1.1 Overview.
This year departments were asked to review general education and major courses relative to the newly
developed CWU Writing Rubric. The department identified the following classes for review. From the
General Education curriculum, we have assessed CS 101 and from the majors courses, we have
assessed our senior capstone courses CS 480 and 481.
1.2 General Education.
Although not listed as a class in which one of the goals is Writing1, none-the-less CS 101 carries out a
major writing project as part of an integrated research project which introduces students to the basic
computing tools of the Microsoft Office Suite. Further as this is one of the Basic Skills courses that about
one-third of all entering freshmen take, we felt it would be an opportunity to add to the overall Writing
Assessment information by assessing this class.
1.3 Major Program.
Typically graduating seniors take our capstone courses CS 480 and 481 in the Fall and Winter terms.
Students form teams that build a major software artifact for actual clients. As part of that process,
students must generate three or four documents (depending upon the type of project chosen and
approach to developing a solution). As this also represents integration of many aspects of our program,
these classes were identified as appropriate to assess for writing.
2. How were they assessed?
A) What methods were used?
The CWU Writing Rubric was used to assess both the General Education course, CS 101, and the major
capstone courses, CS 480 and 481. In the case of CS 101, the class is considered a skills class for the
use of office software and thus does not cover computer science discipline material. With this in mind,
the Rhetoric of the Discipline element in the rubric was not evaluated for CS 101. Naturally, all elements
of the rubric were used in the evaluation of the capstone courses.
1
CWU General Education Document, Appendix B: Gen Ed Course and Goal Alignment, email communication,
Dave Darda, Assoc. Dean, COTS, 2011.
B) Who was assessed?
C) When was it assessed?
General Education: Forty students were chosen randomly (20 each term) from the Winter and Spring
2011 terms of CS 101.
Capstone Courses: Twenty-six students took CS 480 and 481 in the Fall term of 2010 and the Winter
term of 2011 respectively. These students formed six teams (four teams of four and two teams of five)
which generated 22 documents. As noted above, teams generated three or four documents (depending
upon the type of project chosen and approach to developing a solution). Four teams generated four
documents, while two teams generated three documents. All documents were assessed.
3. What was learned?
3.1 Overview
Section 3.2 below will discuss the results collected for General Education and section 3.3 will present the
results collected for the capstone courses.
3.2 General Education.
The table below summarizes the results for CS 101 for the Winter and Spring 2011 quarters. As noted
above, the department used the CWU Writing Rubric on 40 randomly chosen final projects to derive this
data.
Table 1. Results of CS 101 Master Document Evaluation Via the CWU Writing Rubric
N= 40
CS 101
Elements
Content
Pass
%
No Pass
%
The topic is appropriate for the assignment.
40
100%
0
0%
The paper as a whole has a clear sense of
purpose.
40
100%
0
0%
Evidence or information presented in the
paper is relevant, accurate, necessary, and
complete.
37
93%
3
8%
40
100%
0
0%
Overall
Table 1. cont.
N= 40
CS 101
Elements
Reasoning
Organization
Pass
%
No Pass
%
The claims, ideas, and purpose are
significant.
36
90%
4
10%
Claims and ideas are supported by
appropriate evidence and sources.
19
48%
21
53%
Assumptions are recognized and made
explicit.
33
83%
7
18%
Analysis and interpretation show some
combination of the following: depth of
thinking, logical reasoning, complex reasoning,
accurate conclusions, and/or informed
recommendations.
15
38%
25
63%
Overall
31
78%
9
23%
Overall organization fits the paper’s purpose.
40
100%
0
0%
The paper uses appropriate headings,
transitions, and other signposts to guide the
reader.
37
93%
3
8%
The paper’s parts are connected to each other
and to the overall purpose.
36
90%
4
10%
Visual elements, if used, are integrated with
verbal elements.
38
95%
2
5%
39
98%
1
3%
0
0%
0
0%
The text shows evidence of crafting, editing,
and proofreading. Errors may be present, but
they do not impede meaning.
39
98%
1
3%
Information is cited accurately and
completely.
27
68%
13
33%
Format of paper, including any visuals or
diagrams, is effective.
30
75%
10
25%
32
80%
8
20%
Overall
Rhetoric of the
Not done - General Ed Class.
Discipline
Conventions
and
Presentation
Overall
3.3 Capstone Courses.
The table below summarizes the results for capstone courses CS 480 Fall 2010 quarter and CS 481
Winter 2011 quarter. As noted above, the department used the CWU Writing Rubric on all 22 documents
written by the six teams to derive this data.
Table 2. Results of CS 480 and 481 Document Evaluation Via the CWU Writing Rubric
CS 480 and 481
N= 22
Elements
Pass
%
No Pass
%
The topic is appropriate for the
assignment.
22
100%
0
0%
The paper as a whole has a clear sense
of purpose.
22
100%
0
0%
Evidence or information presented in
the paper is relevant, accurate,
necessary, and complete.
15
68%
7
32%
22
100%
0
0%
The claims, ideas, and purpose are
significant.
22
100%
0
0%
Claims and ideas are supported by
appropriate evidence and sources.
14
64%
8
36%
Assumptions are recognized and made
explicit.
22
100%
0
0%
Analysis and interpretation show
some combination of the following:
depth of thinking, logical reasoning,
complex reasoning, accurate
conclusions, and/or informed
recommendations.
7
32%
15
68%
16
73%
6
27%
Overall organization fits the paper’s
purpose.
22
100%
0
0%
The paper uses appropriate headings,
transitions, and other signposts to
guide the reader.
22
100%
0
0%
The paper’s parts are connected to
each other and to the overall purpose.
22
100%
0
0%
Visual elements, if used, are integrated
with verbal elements.
22
100%
0
0%
22
100%
0
0%
Content
Overall
Reasoning
Overall
Organization
Overall
Table 2. cont.
CS 480 and 481
N= 22
Elements
Pass
%
No Pass
%
Demonstrates knowledge of the
subject.
21
95%
1
5%
Use of specialized concepts
demonstrates understanding.
16
73%
6
27%
22
100%
0
0%
8
36%
14
64%
17
77%
5
23%
The text shows evidence of crafting,
editing, and proofreading. Errors may
be present, but they do not impede
meaning.
22
100%
0
0%
Information is cited accurately and
completely.
22
100%
0
0%
Format of paper, including any visuals
or diagrams, is effective.
22
100%
0
0%
Overall
22
100%
0
0%
Rhetoric of the
The paper’s genre, format, language,
Discipline
and tone are appropriate to the
discipline.
The paper shows evidence of
disciplinary ways of thinking and
awareness of audience.
Overall
Conventions
and
Presentation
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
4.1 Overview
Section 4.2 below will evaluate the results presented above for General Education and Section 4.3 will
similarly evaluate the results presented for the capstone courses. The department has established a
level of 75% of the documents evaluated receiving a grade of pass as an acceptable level of mastery for
both the General Education and capstone courses.
4.2 General Education.
The mastery level as defined above was achieved for all four of the elements of the Writing Rubric used
in this evaluation: Content, Reasoning, Organization, and Conventions and Presentation. However, three
of the sub-elements fell below the mastery level. In the Reasoning element, both sub-element (2) Claims
and ideas are supported by appropriate evidence and sources and (4) Analysis and interpretation show
some combination of the following: depth of thinking, logical reasoning, complex reasoning, accurate
conclusions, and/or informed recommendations fell significantly below the 75% level. In the Conventions
and Presentation element, sub-element (2) Information is cited accurately and completely fell slightly
below the 75% level.
While a sub-par performance might be expected in the first two sub-elements noted above for mostly
freshmen students, the levels are below 50% pass and indicate that these are areas that need
improvement. A sub-par performance on the third sub-element is important even in a skills course and
leads to another area of concern.
Action Items.
1. Add emphasis to those aspects of the Master Document construction that call for critical thinking and
generation of supporting evidence.
2. Reemphasize the importance of accurate citations.
4.3 Capstone Courses.
The mastery level as defined above was achieved for all of the elements of the Writing Rubric used in
evaluating the capstone courses: Content, Reasoning, Organization, Rhetoric of the Discipline, and
Conventions and Presentation. However, five of the sub-elements fell below the mastery level. In the
Content element, sub-element (3) Evidence or information presented in the paper is relevant, accurate,
necessary, and complete fell slightly below the 75% level. In the Reasoning element, sub-element (2)
Claims and ideas are supported by appropriate evidence and sources fell slightly below the mastery level
while sub-element (4) Analysis and interpretation show some combination of the following: depth of
thinking, logical reasoning, complex reasoning, accurate conclusions, and/or informed recommendations
fell significantly below the 75% level. Finally, in the Rhetoric of the Discipline element, sub-element (2)
Use of specialized concepts demonstrates understanding fell just below the mastery level, while subelement (4) The paper shows evidence of disciplinary ways of thinking and awareness of audience fell
significantly below the mastery level.
We believe that all these concerns are related to an aspect of the capstone courses that we have already
been addressing. Indeed, we had an action item related to this in our program assessment last year. By
providing an additional quarter of material, the department believes that students will be able to
incorporate more accurate and relevant information and carry out more complex analyses.
Action Item (Action Item 4. from CS Assessment Plan 2009-2010)
3. Use the extra course generated through action item 1 to design a course CS 479 to add to the senior
capstone experience. The extra time should allow for the more complete coverage we have been
looking for in this sequence. We plan that a new course, CS 479, would be designed and
implemented in Spring 2012.
The course has already been designed and taught as CS 463 (not 479). Students in the current capstone
courses took CS 463 last Spring. Assessment results will be part of next year’s report.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
5.1 Overview.
This section will list the action from last year’s assessment report; however, as the department
concentrated on the evaluation of courses through the Writing Rubric over the last year, we did not collect
assessment data on these changes – that remains a task for next year’s report. Section 5.2 will look at
General Education and Section 5.3 will consider the major program.
5.2 General Education.
There were no action items for general education last year; however, there was one potential roadblock
identified.
Potential Roadblock
1. There is a potential roadblock to the continued success of CS 101 and 105. Both courses depend
heavily on the availability of student help in our labs. Though it has been promised for years that
money for hiring these student helpers would be added to our base budget, it never has. Last year,
the department had two pay students during the first quarter on speculation that we would be
reimbursed. Funding was not obtained until January. Given the current fiscal climate, this is an ongoing concern.
Current Situation
Although departments and the university have a new budget model where continuing costs are
identified and provided base-budget funding, it is not clear whether the funding currently in the
student employee line is base budget. Thus this is an on-going concern.
5.3 Major program.
In this section we will first look at the action items from last year’s assessment followed by potential
roadblocks.
Action Items
1. Revamp the material in the quarter courses CS 110, 111, 301, 302 to more closely follow the
recommendations for the semester courses CS 1 and CS 2 in ACM/IEEE Curriculum 2008. This
should lead to the need for three courses CS 110, 111, and 301 to cover the listed material and
freeing a course for use in the solution to the senior capstone courses proposed in action item 4
below. The department intends to offer begin the redesign of CS 110 and 111 in the Fall 2011 and
Winter 2012 terms. CS 301 is intended for redesign in Spring 2012.
Action: Due to faculty retirements and new hires, these curricular changes have been delayed and
will commence Fall 2012.
2. Restructure CS 311 and 312. This was actually intended for several years ago but the instructor
mode only slight changes not fully implementing our intent. This instructor has since retired and a
new instructor will begin a restructuring of CS 311 in Fall 2011 and CS 312 in Winter 2012.
Action: These curricular changes were in place Fall 2011.
3. Much as in action item 1, revamping the curriculum of CS 361 and 362 to conform better with the
recommendations of ACM/IEEE Curriculum 2008 will allow us to condense the material into a single
course CS 361, This frees the course CS 362 to address new material. The faculty believes that this
would be a good place to build a traditional C/C++ Unix/Linux course. It is intended that a revamped
CS 361 will be offered in Fall 2011 and a new CS 362 would be introduced in Winter 2012.
Action: Due to faculty retirements and new hires, these curricular changes have been delayed and
will commence Fall 2012.
4. Use the extra course generated through action item 1 to design a course CS 479 to add to the senior
capstone experience. The extra time should allow for the more complete coverage we have been
looking for in this sequence. We plan that a new course, CS 479, would be designed and
implemented in Spring 2012.
Action: As noted above, the course has already been designed and taught as CS 463 (not 479).
Students in the current capstone courses took CS 463 last Spring.
5. The department has already talked with the Mathematics Department. Both departments agree that
designing a single course, say Math 333, strictly for CS majors to replace the Math 260 330 sequence
would be possible. This would free up a course that would allow students to take an extra Math
course in one of the areas recommended by the Program Reviewer.
Action: Due to faculty retirements and new hires, these curricular changes have been delayed and
will commence Fall 2012.
6. Work on extending the lab closing time beyond 10 pm. While replacing locks with automated card
sensing locking system would be financially prohibitive, the department will investigate identifying
student volunteer monitors to help keep extended hours.
Action: Nothing to report – budgets continue to affect student labor and lab hours remain unchanged.
7. Work on improving our alumni survey and outreach. The department office will commence planning
these activities in Fall 2011.
Action: the department is working with Marketing and the Alumni Office to work with these students in
not only collecting this information, but recruiting for our new Masters program.
Potential Roadblocks
1. As mentioned above, Fred Stanley’s retirement has already come to pass. The department has not
yet received approval to hire a replacement. Failure to act on this soon will doom the operation of the
instructional labs and probably the efficacy of the program (even with the gracious emergency help of
ITS). Of course, it might also imperil many of the curricular action items above as the items will rely
on changes to our hardware and software.
Current Situation
Approval was received and a new hire was successful.
2. The department has also had one of our regular faculty members resign. In reviewing progressing
approvals for both temporary and permanent replacements, What was requested as a NTT year-long
assistant professor request has been turned into an adjunct request. The change may not allow us to
hire a replacement with the background of the professor who resigned. Without question, this would
affect our ability to successfully complete all curriculum related action items, as the resigning
incumbent had featured highly in our plans.
Current Situation
The department was able to successfully hire a tenure track faculty member. We face that situation
again this year, however, as one of our faculty members decide to retire at the end of this academic
year. We are currently on a search for a replacement.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at
Central Washington University: