2009-2010
Assessment
Report
Department of
Computer Science
California State University,
Sacramento
Du Zhang, Department Chair
Assessment Committee:
Mary Jane Lee, Coordinator
William Mitchell
Anne-Louise Radimsky
Richard Smith
Du Zhang
Submitted June 27, 2010
Option 1: Narrative Submission
In AY 2009-2010, the assessment activities of the Computer Science Department focused on the
following:
Undergraduate Program
• Assessment of Program Educational Objectives - Survey of Alumni
• Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes a–d in CSC Core Courses
Graduate Programs
• Development of Assessment Plans for Objectives and Outcomes
• Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes: b. Oral Communication and
g. Written Communication
• Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes a–c and e–h using Employer Evaluations
• Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes a-d Technical Content
Undergraduate Program
Program Educational Objectives – Survey of Alumni
In Fall 2009, the BS degree program in Computer Science was reviewed for external accreditation by
the Computer Science Accreditation Commission (CAC) of the Accreditation Board of Engineering and
Technology (ABET). To address a concern raised by the visiting team regarding achievement of
program objectives, the department revised and implemented a survey of alumni in Spring 2010. This
survey addressed all program objectives and targeted alumni who received their degrees between 3 to 6
years ago. Alumni were asked to respond to general questions related to their company and to their job
responsibilities followed by a question asking them to indicate the importance of each program objective
to their professional careers and how well they believe they were prepared by their CSUS education to
achieve that objective. Sixteen alumni responded to the survey.
In a report submitted to ABET/CAC [1], the department concluded that,
“Overall, the results of this latest alumni survey provide strong evidence on the accomplishment of
our program objectives. This further substantiates the objective assessment results we obtained
through the other two mechanisms: industry visits and evaluation by the department Industry
Advisory Committee. Several meaningful conclusions can be drawn from this latest survey.
1.
A high percentage of alumni (77%-100%) view the department’s program educational
objectives as extremely/very/moderately important in their professional careers.
2. A high percentage of alumni (77% - 92%) rate their CSUS education as having prepared
them extremely/very/moderately well to achieve these objectives.
3. There is strong evidence that our alumni are assuming leadership roles, taking on
increasing job responsibilities, pursuing professional development opportunities, and
participating in life-long learning.”
2
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes a–d in CSC Core Courses
In last year’s assessment report, the department recommended that a process to evaluate core topics
be developed by (1) identifying fundamental performance criteria for outcomes a – d, (2) developing
questions which assess these performance criteria, and (3) examining “norming” procedures for
evaluators and training faculty. The department developed a table which associated for each
outcome a through i, major performance criteria and related core courses (Appendix A).
Rather than assessing knowledge of core topics in upper division elective courses as planned, the
department decided to re-assess core topics in core courses since not all students are required to take
elective courses. Another change made was to use course instructors as evaluators rather randomly
selected faculty to reduce the variability that occurred in prior evaluations of student exams. As a result,
“norming” procedures did not appear to be necessary.
In Fall 2009, instructors for upper division core courses, CSC 130 – CSC 139, identified questions that
would be used to assess at least two performance criteria in Outcomes a through d for their particular
course. These questions were submitted to the department assessment committed for review prior to
implementation as final exam questions in Fall 2009. At the end of Fall 2009 semester, faculty
evaluators submitted student scores on selected questions using a 4-point scale with 4: exceeds criterion,
3: meets criterion, 2: progressing to criterion, and 1: below expectations.
Results of the assessment of core topics are provided in Appendix B. (These results were submitted as
part of the department’s 30-day response to ABET/CAC.) Compared to prior results in the assessment
of core topics (see 2008-2009 Assessment Report for Computer Science) , the following conclusions can
be reached:
1.
For Outcome a, there was improvement in the two areas of deficiency from last year.
Performance criterion, knowledge of fundamental algorithms, improved from 55% to 87%.
Performance criteria, finite state machines (70%) and grammars (96%) were combined into one
criterion this year. Student scores improved to 85% for the merged criterion. However, the
results for criterion a-2, understand and use essential data structures (41%), and a-7, understand
functional programming paradigms (56%) showed deficiencies in student understanding. It is
recommended that instructors in CSC 130 and 136 develop instructional materials that help
students in their understanding and application of these concepts.
2. For Outcome b, the minimum standard was satisfied for performance criteria b-3 understand and
apply design principles (87%) and for b-6 demonstrate ability to design and analyze hardware
components (92%). Students appear to be knowledgeable about computer systems design and
development.
3. For Outcome c, the minimum was not satisfied for performance criterion c-1 understand and
apply semi-formal modeling languages (59%), but was satisfied for c-5 understand and use
verification and validation methods. Because modeling languages, such as UML, are applied in
several courses, e.g., CSC 20, 130, and 131, it is recommended that students be provided with
additional assignments utilizing this tool.
4. For Outcome d, the results were mixed as they were last year. Criterion d-1 competence in
programming a commonly used language was satisfied in CSC 136 (78%), but not in CSC 133
(55%). In the exam question for CSC 133, students were required to write Java code compared
3
to the CSC 136 question covering scope and parameter passing concepts. In general, outcome d
appears to be marginally satisfied.
Graduate Programs
During Spring 2010, in preparation for the campus-level review of the MS programs in Computer
Science and in Software Engineering, a self-study report was completed by the department [2]. Section
2 of the self-study details the department’s assessment efforts for the graduate programs and represents
the assessment of our graduate programs’ educational objectives and student learning outcomes. The
results from that report [2] are summarized in this section.
Development of Assessment Plans for Objectives and Outcomes
The department of Computer Science Graduate Committee and Assessment Committee jointly
developed the program educational objectives and student learning outcomes for the graduate programs.
The list of objectives and outcomes is presented in Appendix C. The assessment plans for our graduate
programs can be found in Reference 2, pages 14 and 15.
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes b. Oral Communication and g. Written Communication
Effective oral presentation was assessed at the department’s biannual Graduate Student Symposium on
April 19, 2010. Fourteen graduate students presented their MS projects. A total of 10 faculty members
assessed the presentations using a new rubric (see Appendix D). In general, our MS students have
effective oral communication skills with percentages of meeting or exceeding criteria between 86% 100%. However, emphasis should be made in CSC 209 Research Methodology on the importance of
providing adequate justification to support the methodologies used in projects which received 71%,
slightly below our minimum standard of 75%.
Effective written communication skills were assessed by evaluating the two major categories of 1)
composition and completeness and 2) presentation of technical content using a new rubric (see
Appendix E). MS project reports from previous semesters (3 from Spring 2009 and 17 from Fall 2009)
were assessed using the rubric. Fourteen CSC faculty and 4 alumni, who are members of our Industry
Advisory Committee, evaluated the reports. With the exception of one report, there were two evaluators
for each report. Analysis of the results indicated that students performed very well in the following
criteria: structure, paragraph, problem statement, design specification, and development. However,
deficiencies appeared in syntax, and in the analysis and conclusion sections of the reports. It is
recommended that the procedures be refined and the number of evaluators per report be increased for the
next review cycle.
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes a–c and e–h using Employer Evaluations
Employers were asked to assess the performance of MS student interns who registered for CSC 195 and
CSC 295 between Fall 2006 and Fall 2009. Questions asked of employers were related to performance in
Outcomes a–d and e–h. Results indicated that all evaluated MS students met or exceeded performance
criteria a-c and e-h with results ranging from 98.67% to 100%.
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes a-d Technical Content
The same written project reports used to assess writing were assessed for quality of technical content
using a checklist (see Appendix F). The evaluators for writing skills were also used to assess technical
4
content. The results indicated that the minimum standard of 75% was reached for all outcomes. The
technical quality of MS projects was viewed as excellent with no deficiencies.
As a result of faculty reflection on these results, are there any program changes anticipated?
No major program changes are recommended at this time for both undergraduate and graduate programs,
although more emphasis in select areas are suggested as indicated, e.g., supporting documentation.
Did your department engage in any other assessment activities, such as, the development of
rubrics, course alignment?
Two rubrics were developed for our graduate programs; one to assess oral communication (Appendix D)
and the other for written communication (Appendix E).
What assessment activities are planned for the upcoming academic year?
The department will fine-tune its undergraduate assessment plans for objectives and outcomes in light of
the recommendation from its accrediting body to change from a 3-year to a 2-year cycle. The change
may be made by eliminating the assessment of core topics in elective courses which are not taken by all
majors. In general, we are on schedule relative to our assessment plans for our undergraduate and
graduate programs.
5
Appendix A
Assessment of Outcomes – Performance Criteria and Core Courses
January 21, 2010 (revised 3/16/2010)
Outcome
(a) Apply knowledge of
mathematics, algorithmic
principles, computer theory, and
principles of computing systems
in the modeling and design of
computer-based systems that
demonstrate an understanding of
tradeoffs involved in design
choices.
(b) Analyze a problem, specify the
requirements, design, implement,
and evaluate a computer-based
system, process, component, or
program that satisfies the
requirements.
1
a-1.
Performance Criteria
Understand and apply fundamental algorithms 1.
Core Courses
CSc 130
Electives
CSc 148
a-2.
Understand and use appropriately essential data structures1.
CSc 130
CSc 151, 152,
165, 174, 180
a-3.
Understand trade off in the selection of algorithms and data CSc 130, CSc 133,
structures.
CSc 190/191
Demonstrate knowledge of abstract machines, languages,
CSc 132
and grammars.
a-4.
a-5.
Understand and use relational databases.
CSc 134
a-6.
Understand predicate calculus and logic programming.
CSc 136
a-7.
Understand the functional programming paradigm.
CSc 136
a-8.
a-9.
Understand layers of communication protocols.
Understand concurrency and resource management.
CSc 138
CSc 139
b-1.
Understand and apply modeling and analysis techniques.
CSc 190/191
b-2.
Understand and apply requirements engineering process.
CSc 190/191
b-3.
b-4.
Understand and apply design principles.
Understand and apply proper testing techniques.
CSc 131, 190/191
CSc 190/191
b-5.
Understand and apply project management processes and
tools.
CSc 190/191
See CSC 130 course description.
6
CSc 148
(c) Apply design and development
principles in the construction of
software systems of varying
complexity.
(d) Use current skills, techniques,
and tools necessary for computing
practice.
(e) Function effectively as a
b-6.
Demonstrate the ability to design and analyze hardware
components such as processors and memory devices.
CSc 137
b-7.
Understand modern computer architectures.
CSc 137
b-8.
Understand and apply process synchronization principles.
CSc 139 (3/16/2010)
c-1.
Understand and apply semi-formal modeling languages
such as UML.
CSc 133
c-2.
Understand and use object-oriented design.
CSc 133
c-3.
Understand and use design patterns.
CSc 133
c-4.
c-5.
c-6.
c-7.
Understand and use structured analysis.
Understand and use verification and validation techniques.
Understand and use software metrics.
Understand software maintenance and prepare for it.
CSc 190/191
CSc 131, CSc 190/191
CSc 131
CSc 190/191
c-8.
Understand and apply documentation standards.
CSc 190/191
d-1.
Demonstrate competence to program in commonly used
languages such as C++ or Java.
CSc 133, CSc 136
d-2.
Demonstrate proficiency in using programming
development tools.
CSc 133
d-3.
Demonstrate competence in using system libraries.
CSc 133
d-4.
Demonstrate proficiency in using hardware description
languages.
CSc 137
d-5.
d-6.
Demonstrate competence in using SQL.
Demonstrate competence in applying regular expressions,
grammars, and automata.
CSc 134
CSc 132, 136
e-1.
Cooperate and collaborate as a team member.
CSc 131, 190/191
7
CSc 148
CSc 165
member of a team to accomplish a
common goal.
(f) Understand professional,
ethical, legal, social, and security
issues and responsibilities;
analyze the impact of computing
on individuals, organizations, and
society both locally and globally.
(g) Write effectively.
(h) Speak effectively.
e-2.
Communicate and listen; keeps teammates informed.
CSc 131, 190/191
e-3.
Face conflicts and resolve differences.
CSc 131, 190/191
e-4.
Contribute equally as a participant in the project.
CSc 131, 190/191
f-1.
Know, understand, and practice professional codes of
conduct (i.e. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional
Conduct, IEEE Code of Ethics, ACM/IEEE Software
Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice).
Phil 103, CSc 190/191
f-2.
Able to evaluate the ethical dimensions of a computer
solution to a problem.
Phil 103, CSc 190/191
f-3.
f-4.
Understand need for and use of proper security measures.
Understand moral/ethical issues in resolving an
ethical/moral conflict.
CSc 138
Phil 103
g-1.
Use language and technical level appropriate for the
audience.
CSc 190/191
g-2.
Demonstrate an organizational pattern that is logical and
conveys completeness.
CSc 190/191
g-3.
Use the rules of standard English.
CSc 190/191
g-4.
Provide adequate detail to support solution.
CSc 190/191
h-1.
Identify main points clearly and present them concisely.
CSc 131, CSc 190/191
h-2.
Demonstrate good organization.
CSc 131, CSc 190/191
h-3.
Attract and hold the interest of the audience.
CSc 131, CSc 190/191
h-4.
Present the material effectively with confidence.
CSc 131, CSc 190/191
8
(i) Recognize the need for, and an
ability to engage in, continuing
professional development.
h-5.
Maintain eye contact.
CSc 131, CSc 190/191
h-6.
Speak clearly and distinctly.
CSc 131, CSc 190/191
i-1.
Demonstrate the ability to identify, evaluate and utilize
opportunities and resources to learn new material not
covered in classes.
Graduating seniors and
recent alumni, CSc
192,194,195, 199
i-2.
Demonstrate the ability to recognize continuing education
opportunities and importance of life-long learning to
professional success.
Graduating seniors and
recent alumni, CSc
192,194,195, 199
9
Appendix B
Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes/ Performance Criteria
Outcome a. Apply knowledge of mathematics, algorithmic principles, computer theory, and principles
of computing systems in the modeling and design of computer-based systems that demonstrate an
understanding of tradeoffs involved in design choices.
Outcome
a
a-1
Understand and apply fundamental algorithms
130
% Students Meeting
or Exceeding
Criterion
87%
a-2
Understand and use appropriately essential data
structures
Demonstrate knowledge of abstract machines,
languages, and grammars
Understand and use relational databases
130
41%
132
76%
134
80%
Understand predicate calculus and logic
programming
Understand functional programming paradigm
136
74%
136
58%
a-4
a-5
a-6
a-7
Performance
Criterion
Course
Average:
69%
Outcome b. Analyze a problem, specify the requirements, design, implement, and evaluate a computerbased system, process, component, or program that satisfies the requirements.
Outcome
b
Performance
Criterion
Course
b-3
Understand and apply design principles.
131
% Students Meeting
or Exceeding
Criterion
87%
b-6
Demonstrate the ability to design and analyze
hardware components, such as, processors and
memory devices.
137
92%
Average:
10
90%
Outcome c. Apply design and development principles in the construction of software systems of
varying complexity.
Outcome
c
c-1
c-5
Performance
Criterion
Course
Understand and apply semi-formal modeling
languages, such as, UML.
Understand and use verification and validation
methods.
133
% Students Meeting
or Exceeding
Criterion
59%
131
77%
Average:
68%
Outcome d. Use current skills, techniques, and tools necessary for computing practice.
Outcome
d
d-1
d-6
Performance
Criterion
Course
Demonstrate competence in programming in
commonly used languages, such as, C++ or Java.
Demonstrate competence in applying regular
expressions, grammars, and automata.
133
% Students Meeting
or Exceeding
Criterion
55%
136
78%
132
77%
Average:
11
70%
Appendix C
From Department of Computer Science Graduate Program Self-Study Report
2.1 Program Educational Objectives
The Graduate Curriculum Committee and the Assessment Committee of the department developed the
graduate program educational objectives listed below.
Graduates of the MS programs will
1. Demonstrate advanced proficiency in the design, development, maintenance, and support of computing
systems.
2. Be effective and contributing members of project teams.
3. Engage in the pursuit of professional development opportunities, and/or pursue advanced degrees.
4. Assume leadership roles in their chosen career and profession.
5. Write effectively.
6. Have effective oral communication skills.
7. Abide by the ethical standards of the profession and understand the ethical, social, and global implications
of their professional activities.
2.2 Student Learning Outcomes
The Graduate Curriculum Committee and the Assessment Committee developed the following student
learning outcomes for the graduate programs.
At the time of graduation, MS students will be able to
a. Apply advanced knowledge of mathematics, algorithmic principles, computer theory, and principles of
computing systems in the modeling and design of computer-based systems that demonstrate an
understanding of tradeoffs involved in design choices.
b. Analyze a problem, specify the requirements, design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system,
process, component, or program that satisfies the requirements.
c. Apply design and development principles in the construction of software systems of varying complexity.
d. Develop and apply skills, techniques, and tools necessary for computing practice.
e. Contribute effectively as members of a team to accomplish a common goal.
f. Understand professional, ethical, legal, social, and security issues and responsibilities; analyze the impact
of computing on individuals, organizations, and society both locally and globally.
g. Write effectively.
h. Speak effectively.
i. Recognize the need for and engage in continuing professional development.
12
Appendix D
Oral Communication Rubric for MS Project/Thesis Presentations
Date: __________________________
Project/Thesis#: _________________________
Evaluator: [ ] Faculty [ ] Instructor [ ] Student [ ] Alumni
[ ] Industry
4 Exceeds Criteria
3 Meets Criteria
2 Progress to Criteria
1 Below Expectation
Organizational pattern: introduction and conclusion, sequenced material within the body, and transitions
Is clearly and consistently
observable, is skillful and
makes the content of the
presentation cohesive.
Is consistently observable
in the presentation.
Is intermittently
observable in the
presentation.
Is not observable in the
presentation.
Are adequate and
generally support the
effectiveness of the
presentation.
Are limited and partially
support the effectiveness
of the presentation.
Are inappropriate and
adversely impact the
effectiveness of the
presentation.
Language choices
Are captivating and
compelling, and enhance
the effectiveness of the
presentation.
Delivery techniques: visual aids, question handling, posture, gesture, eye contact, and vocal expression
Make the presentation
compelling. Speaker
appears polished and
confident.
Make the presentation
interesting. Speaker
appears comfortable.
Make the presentation
understandable. Speaker
appears tentative.
Make the presentation
difficult to understand.
Speaker appears
uncomfortable.
Supporting materials: background and related work, explanations, examples, illustrations, statistics, analogies,
quotations from relevant authorities
A variety of supporting
materials provided. Makes
appropriate reference to
information or analysis
that significantly supports
the presentation and
demonstrates a thorough
knowledge of problem
area.
Adequate supporting
materials provided. Make
appropriate reference to
information or analysis
that generally supports
the presentation and
demonstrates a good
knowledge of problem
area.
Some supporting materials
provided. Make reference
to information or analysis
that partially supports the
presentation and shows
understanding of some
issues of problem area.
No supporting materials
provided. Make reference
to irrelevant information
or analysis and
demonstrates a lack of
understanding of problem
area.
Communication of technical content: project/thesis objectives are precisely stated, appropriately repeated,
logically reasoned, and strongly supported
Communication is
compelling. Arguments
are presented persuasively
and logically.
Communication is clear.
Arguments are adequate.
Communication is not
convincing. Arguments
are lacking.
13
Communication is poor
and ineffective.
Arguments are nonexistent.
Rating
Appendix E
Written Communication Rubric for MS Projects/Thesis
Date: ____________________
Evaluator:
[ ] Faculty
Project/Thesis#: ____________________
[ ] Industry
[ ] Student
[ ] Alumni
Table 1. Evaluation of composition and completeness
Criteria
4 Exceeds Criteria
3 Meets Criteria
2 Progressing to Criteria
1 Below Expectations
NA
Score
Structure. This section evaluates the formal structure of the project/thesis including the organization of sections and subsections. Reports should have a title and a
table of contents showing logical sections and subsections.
The report is well organized, and
Report is organized with a
Structure
(organization maintains a consistent style. Transitions reasonable flow of ideas. Most
and
are logical and smooth.
transitions are logical and smooth.
transitions)
Report is somewhat organized.
Report is not organized.
Transitions are not always logical and Little sense of wholeness and
completeness. Poor
smooth.
transitions.
Syntax, Sentence structure and conventions of standard English. This section evaluates the author's use of language to clearly communicate ideas. Spelling and
grammar are included in the evaluation.
Syntax,
sentence
structure
and
conventions
of standard
English
Words are chosen with care in
consideration of fine differences in
meaning. Correct syntax, spelling, and
grammar.
Sentence structure usually conveys
the intended meaning. In general,
there are few errors in syntax,
spelling, and/or grammar.
Sentence structure sometimes conveys
confusing meanings, but the intent can
still be discerned from the context. A
number of errors in syntax, spelling,
and/or grammar.
Sentence structure conveys
misleading meanings. Many
errors in syntax, spelling,
and/or grammar.
Paragraph Structure. This section evaluates the author's integration of sentences into meaningful paragraphs. Please evaluate the report with respect to the
following description of a well-written paragraph: The first sentence of a paragraph establishes some perspective for the remainder of the paragraph (e.g., a topic
sentence or a transitional sentence). Within a paragraph, sentences are relevant to the paragraph and are in a logical order. Near the end of the paragraph, there is
some statement that unifies or completes the ideas presented in that paragraph.
Paragraph
Paragraphs are on topic and
Most paragraphs are on topic and
understandable. Stylistic variations show understandable with some errors.
command of language.
Although there may be some loss of
focus, paragraphs are reasonably
written.
14
Some paragraphs indicate good
Paragraphs are confusing,
structure, but often, paragraphs do not with unclear topic and
show unifying thought and logic.
meaning.
Sentences within paragraphs seem to
be related.
Table 2. Presentation of technical content This is an evaluation of writing skills as used to convey technical content, not an evaluation of the perceived difficulty of the project. Consider
whether the student has effectively communicated the attributes of the project. If any of the following aspects does not apply, then mark NA.
Criteria
4 Exceeds Criteria
3 Meets Criteria
2 Progressing to Criteria
1 Below Expectations
NA
Score
Problem Statement. This section evaluates the problem statement. A problem statement describes the purpose of the work (i.e., the need being addressed) as well as how the project results will
accomplish that purpose.
Problem
Statement
Objective, nature of challenges and value
of the project are clearly established.
Objective, nature of challenges and
value of the project are adequately
stated.
Some significant aspects of the
objective, nature of challenges and
value of the project are missing.
Significant aspects of the objective,
nature of challenges and value of the
project are missing.
Background and Related Work (Research). This section provides support for the project/thesis by identifying and citing background and related work.
Background and related work are
Background and related work are
Limited background and related work
Background
extensively identified.
adequately identified.
are identified.
and Related
Work
Design Requirements. This section includes specifications of functional and/or non- functional requirements.
Specifications are complete. Appropriate
Design
Requirements design constraints have been identified.
Specifications
Specifications are fairly complete.
Most design constraints have been
identified.
No background and related work are
identified.
Some specifications are missing. Some Requirements are not specified.
design constraints are not identified.
Design constraints are not identified.
Development Process. In this section, students document their development process. The purpose is not to write a history of the project, but to document key development decisions and the
factors that should be considered in making those decisions. It is possible that this section will recommend to the reader an improvement over the development process that was actually
followed.
Limited key development decision
Key development decision
Development Key development decision alternatives are Key development decision
well identified and/or compared.
alternatives are adequately identified alternatives are identified and/or
alternatives are not identified and
Process
Reasoning shows a deep understanding of and/or compared. Reasoning shows a compared. Reasoning shows a limited compared. Reasoning does not show
problem area.
good understanding of problem area. understanding of problem area.
an understanding of problem area.
Analysis of Project Results. In this section, do not evaluate how far the student has developed the project, but evaluate whether you understand what has been accomplished in the project on
the basis of data analysis and performance results.
Analysis of
Results
All important aspects of the performance
of the project are described with measured
results or precise evaluative statements.
The implementation of specified
requirements is fully analyzed and
verified.
Most important aspects of the
performance of the project are
described with measured results or
evaluative statements. The
implementation of specified
requirements is adequately analyzed
and verified.
Some aspects of the performance of the
project are described with measured
results or evaluative statements. The
implementation of specified
requirements are minimally analyzed
and verified.
No aspect of the performance of the
project is described with measured
results or evaluative statements. The
implementation of specified
requirements is not analyzed and
verified.
Conclusion. Evaluate how well the report summarizes and evaluates the major efforts involved in the project, and discusses future work.
Conclusion
Conclusion succinctly describes the
accomplishments of the effort and relates
them to the original problem. Future work
is fully discussed.
Conclusion clearly describes most of
the accomplishments and relates them
to the original problem statement.
Future work is reasonably well
discussed.
15
Conclusion describes some of the
accomplishments and relates them to
the original problem statement.
Discussion on future work is very
limited.
No clear summary of project.
No discussion of future work.
Appendix F
Technical Content Evaluation for MS Projects/Theses
Date: __________________________ Project/thesis#: _________________________
Evaluator:
[ ] Faculty
[ ] Industry
[ ] Student
[ ] Alumni
a. Apply advanced knowledge of mathematics, algorithmic principles, computer theory, and principles of
computing systems in the modeling and design of computer-based systems that demonstrate an understanding
of tradeoffs involved in design choices.
Exceed Criteria
Meets Criteria
Progress to Criteria
Below Expectation
NA*
b. Analyze a problem, specify the requirements, design, implement, and evaluate a computer-based system,
process, component, or program that satisfies the requirements.
Exceed Criteria
Meets Criteria
Progress to Criteria
Below Expectation
NA*
c. Apply design and development principles in the construction of software systems of varying complexity.
Exceed Criteria
Meets Criteria
Progress to Criteria
Below Expectation
NA*
d. Develop and apply skills, techniques, and tools necessary for computing practice.
Exceed Criteria
Meets Criteria
Progress to Criteria
* Mark NA only when an aspect does not apply.
16
Below Expectation
NA*
References
1.
Report on Alumni Survey for Objective Assessment, Department of Computer Science, College
of Engineering and Computer Science, California state University, Sacramento, June 16, 2010.
2. 2009-2010 Graduate Program Self Study Report, Department of Computer Science, California
State University, Sacramento, June 7, 2010.
17