January 27, 2005
Dr. Linda S. Beath
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
Central Washington University
400 East University Way
Ellensburg, WA 98926-7503
Dear Dr. Beath
Enclosed is the written review of the Computer Science department at Central
Washington University. This review is based the Computer Science department selfstudy and my interviews with the College of the Sciences Dean, CS faculty, CS staff, and
CS students.
Sincerely,
Kenneth D. Blaha

To:
From:
Date:
Dr. Linda S. Beath, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
Kenneth D. Blaha, Chair CSCE Pacific Lutheran University
January 20, 2005
Final Report on Outside Review of CWU Computer Science Department Subject:
Summary
The CS department has a strong faculty that function well as a unit. Faculty research and grant production is outstanding for a unit of their size. Especially impressive is the undergraduate research component. There are several ongoing research projects that have active student participation.
The curriculum is thoughtfully reviewed on a regular basis and I see no major weaknesses in the program. Although faculty are teaching a heavy load students are pleased with the CS courses and the instruction. Students repeatedly commented on the extraordinary effort made by both faculty and staff to provide services and quality instruction.
Staff and faculty have a strong working relationship, and staff support is adequate.
Communication between CS faculty, CS chair, Dean of the Sciences, and upper administration functions well, and the interaction is honest and frank.
The Computer Science department has four immediate needs that are a concern for continued quality instruction and research.
1.
Air-conditioning in Hebeler Hall: Faculty, students, and staff all mentioned this as a problem. Students and faculty both said that at times they would have to leave the building for fresh air. This problem should be fixed.
2.
Multimedia presentation equipment for labs and classrooms: Currently only one
CS classroom and none of the labs have fixed multimedia presentation equipment.
The CS department does have multimedia equipment that is on a cart, but this must be moved into the classroom or lab when needed. The labs and classrooms should be equipped with a fixed ceiling projector and a dedicated computer. This should be done immediately and is essential for instruction in CS.
3.
Space: The department needs more space. Any space available in the building would help, and in particular the writing room on the second floor of Hebeler Hall should be dedicate to CS use. The department should determine the details of how the space is used, but the space must be used to solve some or all of the following problems.

a.
Faculty/student research labs : The undergraduate research taking place needs space for faculty and student collaboration. I saw several faculty student research projects that had insufficient space. b.
Students: Students need more open lab space. They also need small workspaces for capstone projects and teamwork. Currently students work on tables and desks that are in the hallway on the second floor of Hebeler
Hall. c.
Adjunct Office Space: There are three adjuncts that share one office. This is not a good working environment and makes it difficult for these instructors to help students during office hours.
4.
Master’s Degree CS: This program would support the research and grant writing that is already being done in the department. This could help with undergraduate enrollment, since students are attracted to schools that have a graduate program.
Also, master’s students could support (e.g., grading, TA’s) upper division undergraduate courses. The department is uniquely situated to offer a two-year interdisciplinary master’s degree program. The first year would focus on core
CS courses. The second year students would specialize in one of several areas where faculty have expertise and strong ties to other departments. Since most of the affiliated departments also have a master’s program, this would reduce the total number of new course needed for the CS master’s degree. The faculty already have a strong track record of working with Geology, Chemistry, and
Business having written grants related to, Geospatial Imagery, Computational
Chemistry, and Data Mining. Here are several points related to the feasibility of the program. a.
It would require one new faculty position. b.
If the CS department acquires the writing room space, then no new lab space is needed. c.
There are students interested in this master’s program, and there is a demand in the marketplace for graduates. But a study should be done to evaluate the demand.
Some CS faculty have grant generated release time, and the chair currently struggles to find adjuncts to teach general education course created by the release time. One more faculty member would eliminate this problem. Currently this is not a major concern and the chair manages to find the adjuncts needed to run the program. If there is an increase in CS enrollment, or if CS faculty begin taking sabbatical leaves, then adding another faculty member (besides the one needed for the master’s program) would be a concern.
Major Areas of Review
Curriculum
The CS department performs periodic complete curriculum reviews. The last one in 2000 was a yearlong process that used the ACM/IEEE CC2001 guidelines to analyze the CS curriculum (please see page 15 of the self-study). The department has a very strong curriculum and I see no weaknesses. The CS department has a systematic course portfolio review procedure. This is a creative method of taking and in-depth look at

particular courses. This allows faculty to check if prerequisite courses provide the student outcomes needed for the next course in the curriculum sequence.
The department did decide to require only one quarter of calculus (many programs require a year). A lot of thought was given to this decision and the faculty will track the ETS Major Field Test results in Theory to determine if the new CS core math requirements are successful.
Program Planning and Assessment
Department goals are consistent with the mission statement of the university and the mission statement of the CS department. The activities described to meet programmatic goals are well thought-out and performed on a regular basis. The department also has several excellent assessment tools. These include ETS Major Field
Exam in CS, senior exit interviews, peer-review of course portfolios, SEOIs, and evaluation of student outcomes by faculty. All of this data is collected and analyzed on a regular basis and program adjustments are made when needed.
I was concerned that in section 1.C of the self-study the Assessment portion often listed activities and not an assessment of the data collected. The assessment information is in the self-study, but it is not described here. Part of the problem may be the format of the self-study.
Section 1.C List programmatic Goals
1.
Identify and describe major program activities that will enable goals and objectives to be reached.
2.
Identify what data will be used to measure (assess) whether objectives are achieved
The chair should be given more information about what is required in this section, and that information must include concrete examples. I suggest changing the format to goals, measurable objectives, description of the assessment tools, and how and when data is collected. This should include an analysis of the data and any action taken.
Faculty
This is a very cohesive group of faculty that functions well as a team. All faculty are active in teaching, scholarship, and service. The department as a whole decided that it is most efficient to allow faculty to focus on areas that best fit their strengths. Currently two faculty have an emphasis in research, two in undergraduate teaching, and the chair’s time is evenly divided between administration, teaching, and scholarship. This approach has worked well and I see no problems or weaknesses.
As mentioned in the summary the grant production and scholarly activity is excellent. Students speak highly of the faculty and are delighted with their educational experience. There is a strong undergraduate research component with many students directly involved in faculty research.
Assessment and review of faculty activity is fair and done on a regular basis. Each year faculty review goals set the previous year and develop goals for the coming year.
The course portfolio reviews mentioned above also allows faculty to peer-review teaching pedagogy.

Library
I did not review the library book holdings. When asked faculty had no concerns with the library holdings. Two students (out of approximately 20) did mention that the books and texts were not adequate for their needs. The journal holdings are adequate, but most faculty and students do not use library journal holdings.
Faculty and students are more concerned with digital library database access.
Some faculty pay for access to the ACM and/or IEEE digital libraries. Students do not have access to these digital libraries. If possible the university may wish to look at purchasing and institutional license to these digital library databases. The university could also purchase individual licenses for faculty and for student officers of the ACM student chapter.
Information Literacy
Students are aware of search engines and digital library databases that exist on the
WWW, and they have had formal instruction in the use of these tools. Several students mentioned that some CS courses examine the credibility of data that is available on the
Internet. I did not pursue this question and I did not talk to faculty and students about information literacy. I assume that the capstone course would give students experience recognizing when information is needed. The capstone course requires students to locate that information, evaluate the information, and effectively use the information.
The self-study addresses the issue of computer literacy and does not address directly information literacy proficiencies expected of CS graduates.
Future Direction
The department is on the right track with its faculty, curriculum, and assessment procedures. It should strive to maintain the comprehensive and competitive program that currently exists. It is essential that the department meet the first three critical concerns outlined in the summary. I think the master’s program would benefit the university and the department for the reasons discussed in the summary, and I think it would be a strong interdisciplinary degree.
Miscellaneous Notes and Suggestions
Review Procedure
The entire outside review process and self-study was organized, and I think it will strengthen the CS department. What follows are several points that may improve the procedure.
1.
The outside reviewer should receive the self-study at least one week before the visit. This will give the reviewer enough time to read the self-study and send preliminary concerns/questions to the department chair before the visit. This was not a problem for this visit because the CS department has a strong program, and the self-study was well written.
2.
The self-study should include syllabi of core courses and the CS Department-
Plans for Graduation academic sheet used for advising majors.

3.
Section 1.C of the self-study needs more explanation, or it may need to be reorganized. Please see comments above in the section on Program Planning and Assessment.
Other CS Department Needs and Suggestions
1.
New faculty need more support for grant writing. a.
Release time b.
Startup funds to get student groups c.
Space for research
2.
Students think current lab equipment is fine, but noted that it was bad the year before. The department should develop a long-range equipment plan. For the CS labs it is necessary to maintain a homogenous set of computers. This means that
20-30 computes must be purchase at once. This is only feasible if there is a plan that staggers the replacement of obsolete PCs. This would help the administration and the department with the budget process.
3.
Adjuncts need one-year contracts. Quarter-to-quarter contracts are not a reasonable planning approach.
4.
The department secretary needs a PC upgrade and that should include dual monitor flat screens.
5.
There must be a set plan and formula that gives faculty release time for overloads
(e.g., capstone advising and independent study).
6.
Use junior and senior female CS majors as role models (e.g., TA or lab assistant) to promote retention of women in CS.
7.
A minor facelift to some of the rooms and furniture in Hebeler Hall would help with faculty and student morale. Many of the students talked about the new science building and they feel like second-class citizens. One left-handed student mentioned that the desks in the classroom were all right-handed desks. Get faculty and student input for this process.
8.
Problems with scheduling of CS courses (course and prereq offered same semester).
9.
Problem with scheduling of CS courses with Math courses (required math courses offered same time as required CS courses (Math330 same time as CS 351,CS352) or (Math 260 same time as CS 362).
10.
Students unaware of available resources (e.g., Microsoft educational license, CS accounts). Advertise this information on CS web page. Also, hire a CS student to maintain, under faculty supervision, CS web page.
11.
Brookline(?) and other University housing have poor internet service (i.e., 56 K access to www).
12.
Inform students of how the SEOIs are used. Students are not sure how evaluations are used, thus there is no buy-in. Some think that faculty do not receive this information.
13.
Students would like to see stronger ties to industry. Career fair is missing representatives from computer industry. Students believe that Career
Development is not doing enough to help them.