The University of Texas at El Paso Department of Computer Science Program Outcomes and Educational Objectives Assessment Plan 2007
Purpose The purpose of the Assessment Plan is to document the procedure for assessing the programs outcomes and educational objectives. The plan presents the items to be measured, i.e., the outcomes and objectives, the instruments used to measure them, and the success metrics used to determine whether they have been met. Program Outcomes and Educational Objectives The program outcomes and educational objectives are the items being assessed. According to the ABET definition, outcomes are narrower statements that describe what students are expected to know or be able to do by the time of graduation from the CS program. Objective 1: Use the theoretical and technical computer science knowledge to specify requirements, develop a design, and implement and verify a solution for computing systems of different levels of complexity. Outcomes 1-1 Apply mathematical foundations, algorithmic principles, and computer science theory in the modeling and design of computer-based systems. 1-2 Estimate the feasibility and effort required to build a particular computing system. 1-3 Identify and specify requirements for computing systems by selecting appropriate modeling techniques and tools. 1-4 Design, implement, and verify computing systems of varying complexity by using appropriate techniques and tools and by selecting appropriate design patterns, architectures, languages, and testing approaches. 1-5 Evaluate a system with respect to criteria such as performance, complexity, correctness, and usability. 1-6 Determine the impact of an architecture or platform on software design and implementation alternatives. 1-7 Apply problem-solving techniques to solve real-world problems. Objective 2: Convey technical information in both oral and written formats. Outcomes 2-1 Present technical information orally. 2-2 Write a professional technical report. 2-3 Formulate and pose incisive, technical questions. Objective 3: Work in teams Outcomes 3-1 Participate as a productive member of a team. 3-2 Solve common problems in team dynamics. Objective 4: Apply a professional code of ethics in the daily practice of their profession. Outcomes
4-1 Project the potential impacts of technical decisions on the individuals, organizations and external constituencies involved, and identify ethical and legal implications. 4-2 Apply the insights embodied in professional codes of ethics. Objective 5: Stay current in their profession. Outcomes 5-1 Describe the importance of and options available for continuing education. 5-2 Describe the role of professional societies 5-3 Articulate the benefits of graduate studies. The mechanisms that are used to collect information in the Department to evaluate attainment of PEOs and POs are described below. Refer to Appendix VII for the instruments, summary reports, and other relevant information concerning data collection. Assessment Instruments Graduating Senior Survey. The Senior Survey is a uniform questionnaire completed by all of the Universitys graduating seniors. Frequency and timing. The Universitys survey of graduating seniors is conducted annually. Data collected: The Senior Survey collects data on students post-graduation plans, their experience at the University with respect to knowledge and skills gained, their satisfaction with multiple aspects of their education, their satisfaction with advising, their use of and satisfaction with university programs and services, and their positive and negative experiences with the University. Means of data collection: Data for the survey are collected by the staff of the Universitys Center for Institutional Evaluation and Planning through a questionnaire. Sources of data: The sources of the data are seniors who apply to graduate in the current academic year. Uses of assessment: The Department uses the data from the graduating senior survey to evaluate attainment of the Departments POs and evaluate the PEOs. Alumni Survey. The Alumni Survey is a uniform questionnaire given to graduates of the College of Engineering. Frequency and timing. The survey is conducted in the spring every five to six years. Data collected: The survey collects data regarding graduates employment, their educational status, their professional activities, their experience at the University with respect to knowledge and skills gained, their satisfaction with multiple aspects of their education, and their views of the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Questions on the survey assess the PEOs. Means of data collection: Data for the survey are collected by the staff of the Universitys Center for Institutional Evaluation and Planning through a questionnaire. Sources of data: The sources of the data are graduates of the Department in the five years preceding the survey. Uses of assessment: The Department uses the data to evaluate attainment of the PEOs. College of Engineering Employers Survey. The COE Employers Survey is a uniform questionnaire given to employers of graduates from the College of Engineering. Frequency and timing. The survey is conducted in the spring every five to six years. Data collected: The survey collects data on regarding the performance of graduates. Questions on the survey assess the PEOs. Means of data collection: Data for the survey are collected by the staff of the Universitys Center for Institutional Evaluation and Planning through a questionnaire. Sources of data: The sources of the data are employers of our graduates.
Uses of assessment: The Department uses the data to evaluate attainment of the PEOs. Senior Exit Interviews. The Departments Senior Exit Interviews are structured interviews with graduating seniors. Frequency and timing. The interviews are conducted every semester. Data collected: The interview collects data on students backgrounds, their expectations of the program, their experiences with the Department, their best experience with a faculty member, their recommendations for maintaining or changing the Department, their post-graduation plans, and their assessment of how well the program achieved its POs in their particular case. Means of data collection: A designated faculty member, currently Dr. Luc Longpr, interviews graduating students using a set of structured questions that align to the POs. To ensure that all students are surveyed, the Department does not clear a graduating students paperwork until the student has been interviewed. Sources of data: The sources of the data for the senior exit interviews are seniors who apply to graduate in the current semester. Uses of assessment: The Department uses the data from the graduating senior survey to evaluate achievement of the Departments POs. Departmental Advisory Board. The Departments Advisory Board provides feedback from the Departments primary constituencies other than students. Frequency and timing. The Departments Advisory Board first met in August, 2000 and meets annually in the early fall. With the restructuring of the college in 2004, the Advisory Board did not meet in 2004 and 2005. In 2006, the Advisory Board held a virtual meeting to review the revised PEOs. Data collected: Prior to an Advisory Board meeting, a committee sets the agenda to address various aspects of the Department. Past themes have included the undergraduate curriculum, graduate program, research, and educational objectives. Means of data collection: Data are collected in reports from breakout-groups and in general group discussion. The Advisory Board submits a report with explicit assessment of relevant objectives. Sources of data: The Advisory Board has included representatives from industry (IBM, Microsoft, HP, Boeing, Lucent, Raytheon, Lawrence Livermore, Texas Instruments), academia (University of Texas, Oregon State University, Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Virginia), and local software and government organizations and government (EPV, Fort Bliss, White Sands). Uses of assessment: The Department uses the data from the Advisory Board to plan the Departments strategy and to evaluate the Departments mission and program. Teaching Evaluations. The University mandates teaching evaluations by students for every instructor of every course. Frequency and timing. The Departments teaching evaluations are conducted at the end of every semester. Data collected: The teaching evaluations collect data on the satisfaction of students with respect to the course and the instructor. Means of data collection: Data are collected via uniform questionnaires and sheets for writing open-ended comments. Sources of data: The sources of the data are the students enrolled in the course. Uses of assessment: The Department uses the data from teaching evaluations to evaluate the Departments POs. Course Assessment. Instructors of required undergraduate courses formally assess the courses that they teach against the outcomes that are associated with it. The outcomes are divided into three levels of learning based on Blooms taxonomy. The first level is knowledge and
comprehension, i.e., those outcomes in which the student has been exposed to the terms and concepts at a basic level and can supply basic definitions. The material has been presented only at a superficial level, typically for the purpose of exposure to material that will be elaborated in later courses. The second level is application and analysis. Outcomes in this category include those in which the student can apply the material in familiar situations, e.g., the student can work a problem of familiar structure with minor changes in the details. The third level is synthesis and evaluation. These are outcomes in which the student can apply the material in new situations. Frequency and timing. According to the schedule given in Table 1 or at the request of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, instructors document in a report how well the course outcomes were met, and the sub-committee chair prepares a CQI report that summarizes the assessment of all courses being assessed in the designated area. (Thus, formal course assessment is done on a staggered, one or two year cycle.) Informal assessment is done each semester at a faculty meeting in the form of a report-out. Data collected: The formal assessment process requires instructors to document the course outcomes, the assessment tools used (e.g., quizzes, tests, observation, or project), the mean and median reached for each outcome, and the achievement of the outcome by the class. The assessment targets are set by each instructor in accordance with his/her experience and expectations. The CQI report documents the recommendations for improvement, and it is presented at a faculty meeting. Means of data collection: The professor, who is teaching the course in the semester in which course assessment is to be done, is responsible for collecting the data and writing an Assessment report for the course. The chair of the area curriculum committee is responsible for preparing the CQI report. Sources of data: Student performance on course assessment instruments. Uses of assessment: The Department uses the data from the report to evaluate the Departments POs and make recommendations for curriculum improvement. Informal assessment is used to inform faculty of course adjustments and concerns regarding student preparation. Table 1: Course assessment schedule
Subcommittee Fundamental Frequency Fall-even year Courses CS1401 (Intro to CS), CS2401 (Elem. Data Structures/ Algorithms), CS2402 (Data Structures), CS3195 (Jr. Professional) CS4375 (Operating Systems), CS3320 (Computer Arch. II), CS3432 (Comp. Arch. I) CS3350 (Automata/Computability/Formal Lang), CS3360 (Design/Implementation Prog. Languages) CS3331 (Adv. OO Programming), CS4310 (Soft. Eng.: Requirements Engineering), and CS4311 (Software Eng: Design and Implementation)
Systems
Spring-odd year
Languages
Fall-odd year
Software
Spring-even year
Industry Feedback. Faculty members have numerous opportunities to interact with industry representatives through personal meetings and faculty summits that are sponsored by industry. Frequency and timing. Feedback is collected each semester, typically during recruiting season. Data collected: The data relates to course material coverage, desirable attributes and knowledge of graduates, and satisfaction with graduates. Means of data collection: The feedback is summarized in a memorandum. Sources of data: The sources of the data are industry representatives, recruiters, and researchers. Uses of assessment: The Department uses the data to evaluate the Departments PEOs and achievement of POs.
Feedback from Quality Enhancement Plan. The University, through a committee, analyzes data and creates a Quality Enhancement Plan every five years. In 2005, the focus was on curriculum review and renewal as well as academic and career advising. The committee consisted of faculty members throughout campus, and the recommendations become campus-wide initiatives. Frequency and timing. Feedback is provided every five years. Data collected: The data collected depends on the focus. The committee generates a report that includes recommendations. The 2005 report made recommendations regarding degree plans and advising. Means of data collection: Data is collected by committee members. Sources of data: The sources for the 2005 report included data about university programs, degree plans documented in the university catalog, statistics concerning time to graduation, student reports on advising, and other related data. Uses of assessment: The Department used the 2005 results to improve the Departments degree plan, evaluate the pre-requisite requirements, and improve the advising processes. The results are also used to align the CS program with university-wide efforts. Advising Survey. Students complete the Advising Survey after they are advised each semester. Frequency and timing. Students complete the survey each semester. Data collected: The survey assesses student satisfaction with advising and the information provided to them by his or her advisor. Means of data collection: The Departments secretary asks the students to complete the survey when they turn in their advising forms to remove departmental holds. Sources of data: The sources of the data are the students. Uses of assessment: The Department uses the data to evaluate the Departments advising processes. Success Metrics Success metrics are used to determine the degree to which an objective or outcome is being met. The percentage may refer to the number of positive responses to a question, number of students receiving a particular rating, the score on a particular question, or the average scores for a group of related questions. Table 2 categorizes the percentages and the course of action needed. The table is meant to serve as a guideline and should be used when appropriate. Table 2: Definition and use of success metrics.
Percentage associated with Success Metric 69% or below 70%-74% Interpretation Not acceptable Marginal Action Immediate action needed Concernfurther analysis is needed to determine source of potential problem Monitor No action No action
Process The Departments process for improvement and evaluation of attainment of Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) and Program Outcomes (POs) is a cyclical, continuous-improvement model consisting of the three phases. Fig. 1 shows the information flow into and out of each phase. The open rectangles represent information stores, the sources of information are denoted by a square, and the rounded boxes represent the processes associated with a phase.
Board of Advisors
Recommendations
PHASE 3 PEO and PO Review (5 years) PHASE 1 Program and Curriculum Review (yearly)
Program Curriculum Improvements
PEOs POs
Results
Outcomes Revisions
Recommendations Improvements
Program Improvements
Course Outcomes
Recommendations
PEOs Outcomes
Results
Figure 1. Information flow of process for program improvement. Phase 1: Short-term Program and Curriculum Review Each semester, faculty review their course assessments and teaching evaluations. There are four main sub-committees that have been formed for reviewing whether course outcomes are met: Fundamentals, Languages, Software, and Systems. Collectively, the courses under these subcommittees span the undergraduate program. The courses associated with each of the subcommittees and the schedule for formal assessment of the courses is given in Table 1. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee may request more frequent assessment based on circumstances such as major revisions in the course, or change in instructors. The charge of the subcommittee chairs is to oversee the assessment of the courses associated with their area, including reviewing course outcomes, ensuring that the instructors assess the courses associated with their area during the scheduled semester or year, writing the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) report for their area in conjunction with the Chair of the Department, and leading a discussion at a faculty meeting regarding the results of the report and recommendations. The charge of the subcommittee members is to map assessment instruments to course outcomes, and to document the results and observations about the class. The subcommittee members should
provide course material to include examples of graded exams, laboratory assignments, and other pertinent material. Subcommittee chairs and members should consult the success metrics given in Table 2 to provide ratings where applicable. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee chair in conjunction with the subcommittee chairs and the Department Chair reviews the departments program outcomes to ensure coverage when the program outcomes cross boundaries. Table 3 presents the mapping of program outcomes and educational objectives with respect to course outcomes. The results from analysis of course outcomes, Senior Exit Survey, and industry feedback are used to determine whether the programs outcomes are being met. Analysis of the data may result in either immediate action or scheduled action. Immediate actions include revising course content or delivery, revising course outcomes, and adding a course. In addition, upon review of results from Advising Survey and other data, the faculty may make adjustments to the program. This includes student advising procedures, course scheduling, course offerings, and other student support activities or actions that clearly improve the quality of the program without the need for justification from other sources. Scheduled actions are recommendations that are considered during the Phase 2 and Phase 3 processes. Phase 2: Long-term Program and Curriculum Review Approximately every two to three years, the Department reviews the scheduled recommendations from Phase 1, PEOs and the program outcomes, and recommendations from industry, alumni, and the Advisory Board to ensure that each PEO is being met and to revise the POs and course outcomes. Changes made at this level are significant and have broad impact on the program and, thus, require deeper analysis and discussion with the Department faculty at large. Improvements at this level typically result in changes in the course catalog. The review typically is done during a faculty retreat. Phase 3: Educational Objectives and Outcomes Review Once every five years, the Department meets to evaluate the POs for relevance. During this evaluation, the recommendations from the Advisory Board, industry, and our alumni, the results from senior survey and exit interviews, and national trends feedback are reviewed and discussed by the faculty. If warranted, the POs and the PEOs are revised to meet the current needs of our constituencies. In addition, the short-term program changes and long-term curriculum changes are revisited. In addition, the assessment process itself is reviewed and adjusted, if necessary, to better serve its purpose. Table 4 breaks down the assessment instruments used to measure program outcomes.
3195
3320
3331
3335
3350
3360
1c,1e, 1f, 2a-2c, 3b
3432
1a-1e, 2c,2i2m,2q 3a-3c
4310
4311
1-1 1-2
2a
1a, 2c 2a2c,3a3e
3a
1a
2a,2d, 2f, 2g
1a
3a
1-3
3a
2a, 3b
2b, 3c-3e
2a
2a-2c, 1b-1d
1a-1e, 3a
1-4
1a-1e, 2b-2n, 3a
1-5 1-6 1-7 2-1 2-2 2-3 3-1 3-2 4-1 4-2 5-1 5-2 5-3 Other
2a-2i, 3a-3m 2b,2e, 2g,2h, 3a-3c, 3e,3g3i, 3l 1a,1b, 1e, 2e 1a-1e, 2a-2i, 3a-3m 1c, 2e, 3b 1b,3a, 3c-3e
2a2c,3a3e
2b-2f, 3b,3c, 3f
3a-3c
2b, 2d, 2f
1h
1c, 2d, 2e
3a 2b,3b3e
3d, 3g 2f
1b 3a
3b-3d
3a 3b
2b, 2n, 2p 3c
1e 3a
1e, 1i
2d, 3a 1a, 1b 3e
3b, 3c
1f, 2h
3b, 3c
3d, 3f 3e 3e
3i 3g 3h
3l 3j 3k
3a 2o 2o 1e, 1l 1e
3a-3m
1c
3b,3c, 3e, 3f 1h, 2i, 3i 1h, 2i, 3i 1n, 2h, 3l 1n, 2h, 3l 1m, 2i 1m, 2j
1b, 2i 1b, 2j
2l
2k
1l 1f
1a, 1b, 1d
Alumni Survey: Q4; Q7; Q17b, f, g, h, l, n, and o; Q19; Q20 Corporate Survey: c, d, e, k, t, and u Alumni Survey: Q17d and e; Q21c and d; Q22; Corporate Survey: n and o
Objective 4: apply a professional code of ethics in the daily practice of their profession.
This survey is being administered by the UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research, and Planning. Your responses will be completely confidential. If you have any questions or technical problems, please contact Denise Carrejo, Ph.D., by email at dcarrejo2@utep.edu or by phone at (915) 747-5117.
Please pick one of the answers below or add your own.
What year did you graduate from UTEP with your undergraduate computer science degree? 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 Other
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
What is your current occupational status? Employed full-time Employed part-time Not employed Self employed Other
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Are you currently working in a computer science field (including education)? Yes No
Page 1 of 7
How would you characterize your current position? Technical Research Teaching Entrepreneurial Management/Administration Other
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Where are you currently employed? El Paso-Cuidad Jurez Region Other Texas Southwest U.S. (NM, AZ, CA, CO) Other U.S. Outside the U.S. (Please specify)
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
What is your current educational status? Not currently enrolled in college Full-time graduate student seeking a degree Part-time graduate student seeking a degree Other
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Please check all that apply and/or add your own variant.
Have you earned an advanced degree or certificate? (Please check all that apply.) Master's degree in computer science Master's degree in a different engineering discipline Master's degree in a discipline outside of engineering Ph.D. in computer science Ph.D. in a different engineering discipline Ph.D. in a discipline outside of engineering Other
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Page 2 of 7
Have you pursued any type of professional and/or continuing education (other than an advanced degree)? Yes No
Please check all that apply and/or add your own variant.
What types of professional and/or continuing education have you sought, and how did you pay for them? (Please check all that apply.) University Courses; Paid By Self University Courses; Paid By Employer University Courses; Paid By Other Short Courses at your Worksite; Paid By Self Short Courses at your Worksite; Paid By Employer Short Courses at your Worksite; Paid By Other Other
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Please indicate your level of involvement in any of the following computing, professional, or community organizations: Member
IEEE ACM UPE
Committee Service
Other
Please list any additional computer science, engineering, professional, or community organizations that were not listed above and indicate your level of involvement in each.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Rate the overall quality of your UTEP education. Excellent Good Below Average Poor Unsure
Page 3 of 7
Would you recommend UTEP to a friend or relative who is considering going to college? Definitely Yes Yes No Definitely No Unsure
Rate the overall quality of the computer science program at UTEP. Excellent Good Below Average Poor Unsure
If you had to do it over again, would you choose to pursue the same major at UTEP? Definitely Yes Yes No Definitely No Unsure
Please comment on your responses to the questions above regarding the computer science program at UTEP.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Page 4 of 7
Please rate your agreement with the following statements.The UTEP computer science program:
A Prepared me to apply math principles Prepared me to apply technical computer science knowledge Prepared me to work in teams Fostered my ability write effectively Fostered my ability speak effectively Developed my ability to apply theoretical methods Developed my ability to apply principles of software engineering Prepared me to model realworld processes and objects Encouraged me to attend graduate school Increased my awareness of contemporary technical issues Increased my awareness of contemporary societal issues Use computer science knowledge to specify requirements, develop a design, and implement and verify a solution for computing systems of different levels of complexity. Prepared me to keep up with changes in the field of computing Gave me the broad education necessary to understand the impact of computer science solutions
Page 5 of 7
in a global context Prepared me to serve as a productive computing professional in society Prepared me to serve as an ethical computing professional in society Prepared me for my current position
Legend for Rank Grid table: Please rate your agreement with the following statements.The UTEP computer science program: Columns:
A B C D E - Strongly Agree - Agree - Disagree - Strongly Disagree - Unsure
Have you designed a system, component, or process to meet specific needs? Yes No
Rate the quality of your preparation for this task as a result of the computer science program. Excellent Good Below Average Poor Unsure Not Applicable
Page 6 of 7
Rate the computer science program in terms of preparation for your career advancement. Excellent
Leadership Addressing ethical dilemas Public speaking Technical writing Pursuit of an advanced degree Independent learning
Good
Below Average
Poor
Unsure
Please add comments about any of your responses to the items above:
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
What were the major strengths and weaknesses of the UTEP computer science program?
Please write your answer in the space below.
Strengths:
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Weaknesses:
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
When you click on the submit button, your answers will automatically be saved. You will see a Thank You message from the administrators of this survey, and then you may proceed to the UTEP home page.
Page 7 of 7
Final Results from The University of Texas at El Paso College of Engineering Computer Science Alumni Survey 2006-2007
The UTEP College of Engineering Alumni survey for Computer Science alumni was designed to assess the program's success in meeting its objectives through feedback from recent graduates. Items included on the Computer Science Alumni Survey of 2006-07 reflect the criteria specified by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technologys (ABET) Engineering Criteria 2000. Items were reviewed and approved by the UTEP College of Engineering administrators and are similar to those used in the 2001 administration of this survey. To facilitate communication with alumni in the future, the survey also included an item where respondents could choose to add or update their email address information. The UTEP Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning (CIERP) coordinated the administration of this survey and the preparation of reports.
Implementation Procedures
The 2006-2007 Computer Science Alumni Survey was distributed to individuals who graduated from UTEP with a baccalaureate degree in computer science between 2001 and 2006. (Alumni with degrees in other academic programs were invited to complete a separate survey from the College of Engineering.) Individuals who received graduate degrees from the College of Engineering were not included in this survey. Alumni were invited to complete this survey through an invitation sent in mid-December 2006 via email or letter. Those who received an emailed invitation received personalized Web links to complete the survey. Alumni who received a letter were directed to a webpage on CIERP's website where they could access a link to the password-protected survey.
Of the 226 computer science alumni on the contact list developed by the College of Engineering staff and the Office of Alumni Relations, email addresses were available for just 57. Due to time constraints, alumni without working email addresses received just one mailed invitation to complete the survey. Alumni with working email addresses who had not responded to the first invitation were sent a reminder to complete the survey on December 22, 2006. A final reminder was sent on January 18, 2007.
Page 1 of 19
Report Distribution
The College of Engineering Dean receives the overall College results and the results for each of the six College of Engineering academic programs. Each department chair receives the College results, as well as results for the academic program(s) directed by that department.
The results may include references to specific faculty and staff members. To preserve the confidentiality of respondents, it is strongly recommended that all academic leaders use discretion in making and distributing copies of the results.
The survey was closed on January 21, 2007 so that final reports of survey results could be generated. Of the 226 alumni CIERP attempted to contact, 37 responded to the survey, and 4 survey invitations were returned as undeliverable. The final response rate for the survey was 16.7%. Given the population size of 226 and sample of 37, the survey is estimated to have a confidence interval of +/-14.7% at a 95% confidence level. In brief , a confidence interval of +/14.7% at a 95% confidence level means that if the survey was administered 100 times, in 95 of those times, the results will fall within +/- 14.7% of the results shown in this report.
Please do not cite, disseminate, or reproduce these results without permission of UTEP's College of Engineering or the Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning (CIERP). If you have any questions, please contact Denise Carrejo, Ph.D. at CIERP, (915) 747-5117.
Page 2 of 19
What year did you graduate from UTEP with your undergraduate computer science degree?
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 Other
Response Percent
Response Total
9 8 11 5 3 1
Response Percent
Response Total
33 1 1 0 2
Graduate Student Working on Master's degree with full ride scholarship Total # of respondents 37. Statistics based on 37 respondents; 0 filtered; 0 skipped.
Response Percent
Response Total
97.1% 2.9%
34 1
Page 3 of 19
Response Percent
Response Total
24 4 0 0 7 1
Project Management Total # of respondents 37. Statistics based on 36 respondents; 0 filtered; 1 skipped.
Response Percent
Response Total
21 4 5 6 0
Response Percent
Response Total
29 3 4 1
Graduated from my Master in Information Technology Total # of respondents 37. Statistics based on 37 respondents; 0 filtered; 0 skipped.
Page 4 of 19
Page 5 of 19
Have you pursued any type of professional and/or continuing education (other than an advanced degree)?
Yes No
Response Percent
Response Total
48.6% 51.4%
18 19
Please indicate your level of involvement in any of the following computing, professional, or community organizations:
Member Committee Service Other Response Total
7 16 10
Please list any additional computer science, engineering, professional, or community organizations that were not listed above and indicate your level of involvement in each.
SHPE/MAES Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) REALTOR N/A
Response Percent
Response Total
Response Percent
Response Total
14 21 2 0 0
Page 7 of 19
Would you recommend UTEP to a friend or relative who is considering going to college?
Definitely Yes Yes No Definitely No Unsure
Response Percent
Response Total
20 15 1 1 0
Response Percent
Response Total
11 23 3 0 0
If you had to do it over again, would you choose to pursue the same major at UTEP?
Definitely Yes Yes No Definitely No Unsure
Response Percent
Response Total
20 8 4 2 3
Page 8 of 19
Please comment on your responses to the questions above regarding the computer science program at UTEP.
The software engineering program and reserach group was excellent and provided the necessary tools for me to work in industry The CS program gave me a strong foundation of knowledge that has allowed me to succeed in every one of my professional endeavors. There is room for improvement. Now that I look back I feel I could have been more involved in knowing my teachers & fellow students, but I felt the environment was not very friend/group oriented. By knowing the teachers & students I would have probably done a better job at school and felt more comfortable there, but I did not. I always came home to do my work, because I was uncomfortable. Maybe if there would be some more involvment from the teachers to get students together, this might help to bring the program together. Perhaps the peer lead learning is the first step. The professors at UTEP are either amazing or mediocre. Most of the math professors were aweful! The only two math professors I had that were of value were Dr. Guthrie and Dr. Duval! Dr. [name deleted] was the worst professor I ever had. He did not teach us. We complained to the chair several times and other people in other departments complained but the math department did not care. I had private tutoring for discrete math and both my CS professors and my tutor (MS in Math) said Dr. [name deleted] was not teaching the material correctly. I feel he cheated me from having a solid understanding of discrete math, a course vital for sucess in computer science. I will never forgive UTEP's math department for allowing him to continue to teach even with so many students complaining. Great program. Some improvements in the diversity of the courses would make the program more attractive. Some (very few) CS instructors are simply outstanding, some are a ok, and others are simply not professional enough, i.e. discriminatory, feminist, mediocre, unprepared, or a mix of all. I did feel a harm done in my education at UTEP, and if it were not for some of those outstanding professors, I would have completely regretted my education at UTEP. The Computer Science department needs to do more research on what are employers working on and define from the beginning of the program if the student is going towards the development/management area of computer science or towards the research/education part of it. From my experience, 80% of what I am currently working on was learned outside the classroom, and this is a shame. However, I would not have this postion without an official degree. Now, this was a couple of years ago, maybe the department has changed since then. I would definetly like to explore other engineer field. I think the CS program is good but I do not think is not worthy of recommendation. I just realize that there are other disciplines that I enjoy as well. Thank you for a good program, and for helping to make me a competent programmer, developer, and engineer. I was able to experience going to a large University and going to UTEP as well. At UTEP the computer science department was smaller which made it more personalized and a better learning environment. I gained more from going to UTEP in the CS department than going to a larger more prestigious University because of that. Quality of the faculty body is really good, however the material being covered in
Response Percent
Response Total
16
Page 9 of 19
classes is not as good as them, there is important material/ technology that is not being covered (i.e. robotics, media technology, Web/ Grid services technologies) I wish there would be more diversity in the classes and research. They have been hiring professors in the past semesters, but most of them are doing research in the same areas other professors are. I think there are many interesting areas out there, and they should consider hiring someone with expertise in those areas World-class faculty! I rate the computer science program only as 'Good' due to a couple of classes that were not very challenging in comparison with the rest of the curriculum at the time. I'm sure this has improved as while I was still attending one of those classes was being revamped. While there were some good instructors in the computer science program, I would rate the overall program average or below average. When I was taking the senior project class (Software Engineering) I met a few people who knew very little about theory or practice of computer science and programming. How were they allowed to make it that far into the degree program? Because some of the classes were too easy and passing did not mean a student had to understand the material. I also remember a comment during my exit interview with the then chair of the computer science department: when we were talking about graduate school he mentioned that if I decided to pursue a higher degree that I should consider better schools. I believe that the program is great. However, I saw a number of the great teachers leave for different reasons during my stay there. UTEP is a school and should be treated as such. Therefore, the best TEACHERS should be held on to tightly. Great teachers mold great students!! I also feel that the content of the studies should focus a little more on real world topics, i.e. web pages, server management, OS details, etc. Overall though, I believe the program is a great one that I am glad to have had the opportunity to go through. Total # of respondents 37. Statistics based on 16 respondents; 0 filtered; 21 skipped.
Page 10 of 19
Please rate your agreement with the following statements.The UTEP computer science program:
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 2.7% (1) 2.7% (1) Unsure Response Total
Prepared me to apply math principles Prepared me to apply technical computer science knowledge Prepared me to work in teams Fostered my ability write effectively Fostered my ability speak effectively Developed my ability to apply theoretical methods Developed my ability to apply principles of software engineering Prepared me to model realworld processes and objects Encouraged me to attend graduate school Increased my awareness of contemporary technical issues Increased my awareness of contemporary societal issues Use computer science knowledge to specify requirements, develop a design, and implement and verify a solution for computing systems of different levels of complexity. Prepared me to keep up with changes in the field of computing Gave me the broad education necessary to understand the impact of computer science solutions in a global context Prepared me to serve as a productive computing professional in society
37 37
48.6% (18) 29.7% (11) 24.3% (9) 45.9% (17) 56.8% (21)
43.2% (16) 45.9% (17) 37.8% (14) 37.8% (14) 40.5% (15)
2.7% (1) 5.4% (2) 8.1% (3) 2.7% (1) 2.7% (1)
37 37 37 37 37
45.9% (17) 43.2% (16) 22.2% (8) 13.5% (5) 62.2% (23)
35.1% (13) 32.4% (12) 55.6% (20) 37.8% (14) 32.4% (12)
37 37 36 37 37
30.6% (11)
50% (18)
13.9% (5)
2.8% (1)
2.8% (1)
36
29.7% (11)
51.4% (19)
10.8% (4)
0% (0)
8.1% (3)
37
48.6% (17)
42.9% (15)
8.6% (3)
0% (0)
0% (0)
35
Page 11 of 19
Prepared me to serve as an ethical computing professional in society Prepared me for my current position
54.1% (20)
35.1% (13)
2.7% (1)
2.7% (1)
5.4% (2)
37
35.1% (13)
43.2% (16)
13.5% (5)
2.7% (1)
5.4% (2)
37
Response Percent
Response Total
91.9% 8.1%
34 3
Rate the quality of your preparation for this task as a result of the computer science program.
Excellent Good Below Average Poor Unsure Not Applicable
Response Percent
Response Total
10 21 3 0 0 0
Rate the computer science program in terms of preparation for your career advancement.
Excellent Good Acceptable Poor Unsure/Not Applicable 2.7% (1) 5.4% (2) 2.8% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Response Total
Leadership Addressing ethical dilemas Public speaking Technical writing Pursuit of an advanced degree Independent learning
29.7% (11) 32.4% (12) 16.7% (6) 35.1% (13) 43.2% (16) 45.9% (17)
37.8% (14) 40.5% (15) 36.1% (13) 40.5% (15) 37.8% (14) 43.2% (16)
27% (10) 21.6% (8) 36.1% (13) 18.9% (7) 8.1% (3) 10.8% (4)
2.7% (1) 0% (0) 8.3% (3) 5.4% (2) 10.8% (4) 0% (0)
37 37 36 37 37 37
Page 12 of 19
Please add comments about any of your responses to the items above:
Response Percent
Response Total
5
The program was taught for technical purposes, book oriented, not real-world experience. Plenty of theory, but hardly any real-world application. Leadership, and public speaking seemed to be the downfall for computer science students. Hardly anyone was good at this. No one every told me how to keep up to date with the every changing world of technology. It seemed that independent learning is all that I learned how to do well. none Not too much emphasis neither on writing technical reports nor giving technical presentations As part of my undergraduate curriculum, I took a public speaking course, which was excellent. I cannot remember if this was a required course, or not. If it was not, it should be. N/A. Total # of respondents 37. Statistics based on 5 respondents; 0 filtered; 32 skipped.
What were the major strengths and weaknesses of the UTEP computer science program?
Page 13 of 19
Strengths:
Response Percent
Response Total
28
The professors experience and availability to assist the students. Good professors. Intersting classes. Lots of theory. Instructor to student ratio. Very well qualified professors, who knew a lot in there area of their expertise. Usually always available for questions. Several computers to work on for independent study. Teacher Aids were also very helpful and knowledgable. - Dr. K. Ward, Frank Fdz., Prof. Bell, Dr. Kreinovich, Dr. Roach, Dr. Teller - Good & caring professors, interested in student's learning
Relatively small classes Overall experience of working on a team yet being independent. Professors like Dr. Novick and Dr. Modave who encouraged formal education after graduation. These professors cared about the students and their success. addressing ethical dilemas, methodical analyzation Software Engineering Corse The great instruction and guidance in the software engineering area, specially in: - The extensive focus on correctness of software specifactions and requirements writing. - The amount of time dedicated to the software engineering life cycle and the focus on the planing and design steps. The UTEP computer science program provides a very strong technical foundation for students that intend to continue their studies, as well as those students that intend to enter the professional workforce to do software development. I think that the program, as it currently stands, provides an excellent balance between the two paths. Some of the "Strengths and Weaknesses" are relative to the Instructor that chance or luck delivered at the given time a student applied for a class, thus it really depended on how good a particular instructor is. Some of the "Strengths and Weaknesses" apply exclusively to the students will power to take advantage of the tools freely provided by the CS department, which were many, and this I do consider a big Strength of the CS Program, for it provided many tools for the willing student.
very proactive Good professors, Good equipment, Research grants, ACM. Knowledge of different softwares. The department prepares students to be self-reliant engineers. It gives students the tools to see patterns in the changing technology, and helps make them flexible to the rise of new technologies, so that while the department may not explicitly teach the up and coming trends in the technical world, the skills that are learned allow them to easily adapt and improve upon the technology. Small class sizes and individual attention to students. The availability of faculty and the undergrad research opportunties.
Page 14 of 19
The Software Engineering classes are challenging but they are a valuable learning experience and I have been able to use in my career. Diversity of Faculty Funding for Undergraduates
Friendly faculty, good structure in core classes Theoretical views of Software Design and implementation. Very strong technical and software engineering skills. Teaches more than the basics and creates a mindset of hunger for knowledge. Good software engineering course. Good math curriculum. Most other comp science classes were relevant, challenging and taught well. A few strong professors. Small enough that a student can interact with professors on a regular basis. Strengths are in the technical preparation of the student - algorithm development, programming, problem solving, mathematics, etc. - Coursework Total # of respondents 37. Statistics based on 28 respondents; 0 filtered; 9 skipped.
Page 15 of 19
Weaknesses:
Response Percent
Response Total
26
The availability of the classes being offered. The labs gradually improved and are top of the line at this point but at the beginning it was not the case. Too much theory too little real world experience. Alignment with technology based, high paying corporations Needs more real-world experience. More group activities, class work related as well as non-class related. I felt that it could use more exposure to Network Administration, because it seems this is an ever growing industry. - Technical infrastructure - Conservative degree (I didn't take a single class in latest technology e.g. Web development, PHP, JSP, XML, AOP) - Lack of emphasis in C/C++. I am not saying that Java is the wrong way to go, but at least one advanced class in C++ would have helped The environment is bland and ugly when it comes down to the interior of the building, no consistency of flooring and paint. International professors who did not speak english well. The math department was particularly bad. The Math professors public speaking and technical writing Need to have a classes that teach students to reuse code. This is a major aspect of my daily work and something that was missing from my UTEP studies Some classes are made to easy to everyone can pass. The lack to embrace new trends rather quickly, specifically practical courses. Specially courses that deal with emerging techology, new programming languages, new security policies, ethics and changes that affect the way computer scientist solve problems in the real world. The program is strong in providing students with the skills necessary to develop new software, but I think that the program could do more to prepare students to handle the challenges of enhancing legacy software; this might be handled by covering topics such as refactoring techniques, as well as providing students with the opportunity to learn how to perform a cost/benefits analysis. I think that the program could also do more to provide students with some experience in developing systems-of-systems. do not pay much attention to underrgad development. only to graduate students Not enough team work, some languages such as C#, ASP.NET (which are widely used now) were not taught, only one big project (Software engineering) C++ was used but not taught like Java was taught. The electives and a upper level undergraduate were limited. Often we were allowed to take a graduate course. However since the material was taught at an upper level it was hard to follow along and keep up. Lack of professional development instruction. For example tutorials on recent technologies. I noticed other universities offer Operating Systems as a requirement course, back then it was only an elective in the Computer Science Department. I wish I had taken this course because my other collegues use and understand more on threads, scheduling, etc. They told me they learn it in that course. I wish the networks course was more challenging in providing labs and hands-on to networking and hardware. Page 16 of 19
Degree Plan is not comprehensive enough Not enough technical practice I thihk math classes should be revised. There are good math classes that should be, if not required - at least recommended as optional; Not too much diversity of classes; once there was offered a course in Cryptography, and never offered again Creating solutions for real world application and needs A bit dated on the programming languages used as foundations. Lacks more core info security classes. A class or two were weak. Some courses were too easy. Lack of choice in electives. Weaknesses are in spoken language preparation, writing, editing, presenting, etc. - Need more real world experience - Loss of great TEACHERS!! Total # of respondents 37. Statistics based on 26 respondents; 0 filtered; 11 skipped.
Page 17 of 19
Response Percent
Response Total
23
More support for the outreach programs or efforts done by the students such as the acm student chapter and several other organizations. More on-hand approch to learning about the real world software engineering world. Work on the weakness above. All commented above. - Forget about the awful start with Scheme or other toy languages - A class that covers more practical latest tech. and trends, (AJAX instead of Quantum) - An advanced class in C++, OR (C++ instead of SmallTalk in the Design & Implementation) - Technical writing and technical public speaking - Take advantage of practically free Software provided by MS or IBM, and teach students how to use it - Teach real world conventions, (e.g. package naming, coding standards, SCM, source control) in more than one class, not just SE. In other words, make all this best practices second nature.
Use industry tools for hands on experience. Modernize the building by doing some remodeling and painting. Allow the CS department to teach discrete math. In many universities, this is a CS course. Math professors like [name 1 deleted] and [name 2 deleted] butchered the material. When several students complained, the math department ignored us. There was even a shirt made by the local ACM chapter that said "F is for [name deleted]". Focus more on public speaking and technical writing in early stages of program. Bring faculty that has more field experience, thus balancing the researchinvestigation and the practical computer science in the program. I would like to see the program provide a greater emphasis on the development and evaluation of algorithms. One improvement I would love to see done... is having the UTEP CS Program be truly selective on Instructors and their quality of instructing, not by mere awards given, or by status or title, but by actually attending on one of their classes and acknowledging whether they truly are good instructors or simply, by having an outside party rate their effectiveness and not some inner comrade that thinks X instructor is good or not. put mor effort into getting undergrad students involved in activities that increase their motivation to study deeper into topics for CS. Also, to guide them in ways that bring them closer to a graduate school degree. Every class should implement team work. It would help a lot if most classes would require a semester-long project. Most of my learning came from sitting in front of the computer and "creating" something, not from writing with a pencil (tests)... and although this would be impossible, I would increase the number of projects and decrease the number of paper tests. Most classes should require student presentations (i.e. PowerPoint) throughout the semester. Classes being offered more than just one time during the semester and being offered every semester. Include more electives offered and an undergraduate level while still keeping them Page 18 of 19
challenging. By adding more applied courses in relvent technologies. More hands-on, lab work, with the robotics, networks, databases. fix weaknesses Less theory more practical. Have classes specific to network topologies and how they are applied in the real world. Raise the standard for classes. (e.g., make some of them harder, don't make any classes easy, etc.). Make it easier to find out what kinds of research and project are ongoing. It would be nice if the CS home page had a link to a research and projects page. The better colleges make it easy to find out what work is being done by the professors and the students. UTEP CS should do that as well. - KEEP GREAT TEACHERS (Ward, Roach, Novick) - Add more real world experience Total # of respondents 37. Statistics based on 23 respondents; 0 filtered; 14 skipped.
Page 19 of 19
Name: Date:
Youve spent a lot of time in this department, so you maybe in a good position to give us some feedback so we can improve the department. 1. Personal history Please tell us about yourself, whatever youre willing to share. For example, where did you grow up? What are your parents doing? Where did you go to school? Have you been working? etc. 2. Why UTEP? Why did you choose UTEP? 3. Expectations for CS We view CS 1401 as the entrance into our program. As you were taking CS 1401, what did you expect about the rest of your program, and now that youre finishing, was the program the same as you expected? 4. Experiences with CS Would you share experiences you lived at UTEP that were especially good or especially bad? 5. Faculty Is there a faculty member that you considered especially good or especially bad? 6. Things to keep We go through many changes in the department over the years, and you probably witnessed some of those. Is there something you observed here that was so good that we should make sure to keep it through future changes? 7. Things to change If you were in the position of department head, what would you do to improve the department? 8. Plans What are your plans for when you graduate? 9. Objectives The department has some educational objectives. Can you tell us if we did a good job in teaching you the following: a. Theory and methods b. Applications c. Teamwork d. Ethics and society e. Life-long learning (did we teach you how to continue learning by yourself after you graduate?) f. Graduate school Did we tell you that graduate school is a possible next step in your career? 10. Other Is there anything you would like to add? We try to keep track of all our alumni. Beatriz agreed to keep a list of alumni up to date. Wed like to ask you to communicate any new e-mail or physical address change to her. We may use this list in the future for: organizing alumni reunions, help alumni keep in touch with each other, contact alumni for talking to new students, future surveys after youve been out for a while, fundraising. About fundraising, it is not your priority now. You need to pay off your loans, set up your retirement funds, perhaps raise a family. If they contact you too soon, you decline. But there is a time in your career when you are considering where to donate some of your money for maximum benefits to others. It may be 5, 10 or 15 years out. We hope you become successful and rich :-) and that youll remember us at that time. Good luck with the rest of your semester and in your career.
Summary Exit interviews, 05-06 academic year. Experiences in CS. Topics mentioned by at least 3 students: Good: software engineering class, making friends, architecture I class (robot), multicultural environment, challenging class assignments, professors, good TAs, research groups, involvement in ACM. Bad: trouble in early classes. Other topics mentioned: Good: team work, CS 123, being appreciated, learning java, being a peer leader, computer security, video game programming. Bad: architecture I class, faculty leaving, UTEP admin, parking, tuition increases, taking too many courses at once, scheduling, registration, time crunch, team work, witnessing cheating, some math courses, some professors not flexible, advising, math professors. Techniques that work. Topics mentioned by at least 3 students: Making difficult subject easy to understand, explain well, available and willing to help, personal approach (like friend), real world experience, interesting, challenging but doable, interest in student learning, enthusiasm, well organized, make students think, knows the material. Other topics mentioned: Doesnt just read from slides, industry experience, facilitate, advising help, patience, office hours, push students to their best, involvement in research, provides partly written programs for assignments, straight to the point, give inspiration, lots of small assignments following class material, open doors, power point slides, good exams, humor, personal experiences, smart, examples, high expectations, good focus, spend time to explain things, lectures followed by exercises, good feedback. Things to keep. The topics mentioned by at least 3 students: Faculty members, staff, resources availability, continued lab improvement, software engineering class, software engineering lab, curriculum, small size department, research groups. Other topics mentioned: Faculty interacting with students, beginning CS in Java, schedule, advising, web based computing, computer security, professional orientation, giving lots of assignments, teaching methods, strong background of professors, TA availability, talks/seminars, variety of topics, ACM student chapter, handson experience, invited speakers, student help in early classes, students concern being heard, social events. Things to change. The topics mentioned by at least 3 students: Extended labs hours, more student involvement in research, scheduling, merge Architecture I and II into one class, more special topics/electives, more hands-on in class, other programming languages like C++,
avoid instructors without Ph.D. or using Ph.D. students for instructors, lounge area for students, fix equipment. Other topics: More student involvement in activities, less turnaround in faculty, software engineering class, more computer security, add game programming class, add web based programming, send some professors to improve their teaching, more sections in some classes to help scheduling, consider interdisciplinary program, add mens room on 3rd floor, more classrooms, make it easier to recover after failing a class, teach more on software testing, more students to seminars, CS catalog descriptions, make different tracks in curriculum, coop participation, make OS optional, more programming languages, more technology, more practice class, parking, make SE shorter, some invited professors teach a class, more internet/network courses, more hardware classes, more group work, more TAs, improve TA interactions with students, building, better prerequisite for CS 3360, join rest of engineering, improve studentprofessor communication, service from front office, building security, not enough computers, ask for student evaluation during semester instead of at the end, discrete math more related to CS, more exposure to Unix. Plans for after graduation. Grad school: 15 Has work: 10 Looking for work: 24 Undecided: 6
Summary Exit interviews, 04-05 academic year. Experiences in CS. Topics mentioned by at least 3 students: Good: involvement in ACM, involvement in research, software engineering class, making friends, internship. Bad: none. Other topics mentioned: Good: projects, video game programming, technical electives, extracurricular activities, CS 1401, the available help, engineering expo, experience with Candle Lighters, variety of courses, robotics, work as a workstudy, automata, tutoring, being a peer facilitator, TCM, work with grad students, being a TA, Lockheed Martin experience. Bad: advising, parking, his poor course planning, Univ. not helping students, classes outside CS, hard assignments, commute, managing work and school. Things to keep. The topics mentioned by at least 3 students: The labs, the software engineering lab, research for undergrads, faculty members, open doors, software engineering class. Other topics: projects, group work, atmosphere, 1 language in 3 course sequence, help available, curriculum, ACES, Java as language, technical electives, assembler, UNIX and Linux, graphics, robotics, network administration, team teaching, personal experience in classroom, diversity in classroom, diversity in faculty members (age, background, experience, etc), 4390 courses, tutors, collaboration with other depts, diversity in topics. Things to change. The topics mentioned by at least 3 students: more electives, course scheduling, more exposure to languages other than Java, access to wireless. Other topics: better evaluation of teamwork, experience with writing and documentation before SE, interaction with Engineering, curriculum sequencing (be sure students know what theyre supposed to know), video game course, C and C++, real world experience, another lab, access to computers, more required courses, security courses, better adjustment of air conditioning, add labs to some courses, bring back robotics, better software engineering grading, fridge for students, more sections for large classes, more computers, go back to just a few advisors, slow software installation, change some 4390 to regular class, bigger building, encouragement of profs and students, more hands-on, less theory. Plans for after graduation. Grad school: 17 Has work: 5 Looking for work: 16 Undecided: 7
Educational objectives.
Fall 2004 Objective Theory and Methods Applications and teamwork Ethics and society Life-long learning Graduate school Positive 18 14 18 17 17 Negative 0 4 0 1 1 Positive 100% 78% 100% 94% 94% Goal 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Outcome satisfied not satisfied satisfied not satisfied not satisfied
Spring/Summer 2005 Objective Theory and Methods Applications and teamwork Ethics and society Life-long learning Graduate school Positive 27 25 22 25 25 Negative 0 2 5 2 2 Positive 100% 93% 81% 93% 93% Goal 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Outcome satisfied not satisfied not satisfied not satisfied not satisfied
Note: many students would like to answer "applications" and "teamwork" as different questions.
Recommendations. Continue our thrust to incorporate more exposure to languages other than Java. More exposure to Unix/Linux was also a problem we identified. Consider the scheduling of our courses and how it may conflict with required courses outside the department, especially for the first two years.
Educational Objectives.
Fall 2005 Objective Theory and Methods Applications Teamwork Ethics and society Life-long learning Graduate school Positive 21 20 17 20 21 21 Negative 0 1 4 1 0 0 % Positive 100% 95% 81% 95% 100% 100% % Goal 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Outcome satisfied satisfied not satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied
Spring/Summer 2006 Objective Theory and Methods Applications Teamwork Ethics and society Life-long learning Graduate school Positive 35 31 34 34 33 33 Negative 0 4 1 1 2 2 % Positive 100% 89% 97% 97% 94% 94% % Goal 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Outcome satisfied not satisfied satisfied satisfied not satisfied not satisfied
Recommendations. Build on our strengths: students really value the quality of our faculty members, involvement in research, open door policy, software engineering class, small size department. This is well line up with our departments mission. We should keep this up. New concerns: The students seemed to have been affected by faculty turnaround. We need to consider students when making decisions that could increase faculty turnaround. Continued concerns: We should continue our thrust to incorporate more exposure to languages other than Java. Consider the scheduling of our courses and how it may conflict with required courses outside the department.
Summary Exit interviews, 03-04 academic year. Experiences in CS. Topics mentioned by at least 3 students: Good: The faculty and their availability. Research experience. Bad: none. Other topics mentioned: Good: ACM involvement, video game programming, atmosphere, his work for the department, collaboration between faculty, networks course, ACES, clean building, computer security, PACES lab, software engineering course, the curriculum, being a TA. Bad: the printer, software engineering too long and unfair grading, parking, witnessing a lot of cheating, registration, team taught courses, security on computers too restrictive. Things to keep. The topics mentioned by at least 3 students : availability of faculty and open doors (mentioned by a lot of students), software engineering, class size, ACES, the faculty, architecture class, course variety. Other topics: Java, curriculum, involvement in research, tutoring, website, small department, passwords in main lab, student advising, group work, Unix, graphics course, AI and robotics, assignments and projects, student involvement in faculty hiring, technology in classroom, ACM/UPE, department atmosphere, lab for data structures, CS 3360, labs for intro classes. Things to change. The topics mentioned by at least 3 students: more exposure to unix/linux, a couch or chairs where to sit, the building, more extracurricular activities, larger lab, more lab hours, more exposure to C and/or C++, more networks, more advanced classes and possibility of following tracks. Other topics: add graphics, web services, course on hardware, refrigerator for students, improve course conflicts, add wireless network, less math, more sections, more tutors, improve availability of TA and tutors, SSEAL computers, add robotics and AI, better TAs, more office hours, course variety, PACES computers, get rid of physics courses, software engineering worth more credits, another computer lab for networking, require internship, tutorials, faculty training (to be up to date with newer technology), building colors, ask TAs to attend classes, grading of group work, web design course, add wireless in the building, computer security in CS 1401, paint the building. Plans for after graduation. Grad school: 13 Has work: 9 Looking for work: 23 Undecided: 6
Educational objectives.
Fall 2003 Objective Theory and Methods Applications and teamwork Ethics and society Life-long learning Graduate school Positive 18 16 16 18 18 Negative 0 2 2 0 0 Positive 100% 89% 89% 100% 100% Goal 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Outcome satisfied not satisfied not satisfied satisfied satisfied
Spring/Summer 2004 Objective Theory and Methods Applications and teamwork Ethics and society Life-long learning Graduate school Positive 32 31 28 29 32 Negative 0 1 4 3 0 Positive 100% 97% 88% 91% 100% Goal 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% Outcome satisfied satisfied not satisfied not satisfied satisfied
1. When do you plan to graduate? a. Summer 2002 b. Fall 2002 c. Spring 2003
7. Do you have any immediate plans to attend graduate or professional school? a. Yes, plan to re-enroll at UTEP: Which UTEP college?3,4 College of Business Administration College of Education College of Engineering College of Health Sciences College of Liberal Arts College of Science Other Unsure No response b. Yes, plan to enroll at another institution: What university?5,6 Texas college or university NMSU/other New Mexico Out of state (not New Mexico) Interstate college (Phoenix, Webster) Law school Medical school Other Unsure No response c. Yes, but do not plan to enroll yet d. No, did not apply e. No, applied but was not accepted f. Undecided
1,3,5 2,4,6
Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses Individual comments are listed in Appendix A.
n = 1203 120 10.0 1059 88.0 24 2.0 n = 1081 7 0.6 1062 98.2 12 1.1 n = 1053 0 0.0 1049 99.6 4 0.4 n = 1083 35 3.2 1039 95.9 9 0.8 n = 1080 31 2.9 1045 96.8 4 0.4 UTEP n = 1329 86 47 41 82 21 73 45 904 % 6.5 3.5 3.1 6.2 1.6 5.5 3.4 68.0 UTEP n = 1284 596 171 110 407 % 46.4 13.3 8.6 31.7 UTEP n = 1304 871 244 189 % 66.8 18.7 14.5
9. If you are obtaining a new job soon, how did you obtain the position? a. UTEP Career Services (resume referral, career fair, on-campus interview) b. Direct contact using employer directories c. Internet/Web job announcements d. Through a previous internship, co-op, or research project e. Referral by a UTEP department or faculty member f. Networking through personal connections g. Other (newspaper, public employment services, etc) Specify2: h. Not applicable
10. If you plan to continue working in your present job or to start a new job soon, is it related to your major at UTEP? a. Yes, directly related b. Yes, somewhat related c. No, not related d. Not applicable
Computer Science n = 29 % 16 55.2 4 13.8 3 10.3 6 20.7 Computer Science n = 32 % 28 87.5 2 6.3 2 6.3
11. Are you WILLING to relocate for a job out of the El Paso/ Las Cruces/Ciudad Jurez area? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure
1 2
Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses Individual Comments are listed in Appendix A.
12. Are you PLANNING to relocate for a job out of the El Paso/ Las Cruces/Ciudad Jurez area? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure UTEP EXPERIENCE
UTEP 13. Have your knowledge and skills been enhanced in the following areas as a result of your UTEP experience? a. Think critically Yes No Unsure b. Read with comprehension in English Yes No Unsure c. Express yourself through speaking in English Yes No Unsure d. Express yourself through writing in English Yes No Unsure e. Express yourself in a language other than English Yes No Unsure f. Understand math concepts Yes No Unsure g. Use math in your major/field Yes No Unsure h. Use computers Yes No Unsure i. Use the current technology in your major/field Yes No Unsure j. Understand science concepts Yes No Unsure %
Computer Science n = 32 30 1 1 n = 32 25 7 0 n = 32 24 8 0 n = 32 25 5 2 n = 32 9 23 0 n = 32 30 2 0 n = 32 28 2 2 32 0 0 27 3 2 29 1 2 87.5 6.3 6.3 n = 32 100.0 0.0 0.0 n = 32 84.4 9.4 6.3 n = 32 90.6 3.1 6.3 93.8 6.3 0.0 28.1 71.9 0.0 78.1 15.6 6.3 75.0 25.0 0.0 78.1 21.9 0.0 93.8 3.1 3.1 %
n = 1311 1261 96.2 35 2.7 15 1.1 n = 1311 1096 83.6 183 14.0 32 2.4 n = 1310 1091 83.3 190 14.5 29 2.2 n = 1307 1136 86.9 137 10.5 34 2.6 n = 1307 679 52.0 581 44.5 47 3.6 n = 1311 1049 80.0 189 14.4 73 5.6 n = 1312 942 71.8 287 21.9 83 6.3 n = 1309 1136 86.8 143 10.9 30 2.3 n = 1310 1092 83.4 151 11.5 67 5.1 n = 1306 998 76.4 211 16.2 97 7.4
n = 1309 72.3 20.0 7.6 n = 1307 1113 85.2 154 11.8 40 3.1 n = 1309 1054 80.5 164 12.5 91 7.0 n = 1304 996 76.4 201 15.4 107 8.2 n = 1305 971 74.4 231 17.7 103 7.9 n = 1302 980 75.3 239 18.4 83 6.4 n = 1310 1163 88.8 115 8.8 32 2.4 n = 1306 1092 83.6 172 13.2 42 3.2 n = 1303 1014 77.8 229 17.6 60 4.6 n = 1306 1140 87.3 103 7.9 63 4.8 n = 1309 1186 90.6 100 7.6 23 1.8 n = 1310 1186 90.5 92 7.0 32 2.4
n = 1306 1061 81.2 198 15.2 47 3.6 n = 1306 1045 80.0 207 15.8 54 4.1 n = 1308 1078 82.4 155 11.9 75 5.7 n = 1304 990 75.9 183 14.0 131 10.0 n = 1311 965 73.6 184 14.0 162 12.4 UTEP
Computer Science % n = 29 19 10 0 n = 24 10 14 0 n = 23 12 9 2 n = 24 13 10 1 n=8 7 1 0 n = 29 15 12 2 51.7 41.4 6.9 87.5 12.5 0.0 54.2 41.7 4.2 52.2 39.1 8.7 41.7 58.3 0.0 65.5 34.5 0.0 %
14. If you answered Yes to question 13, how much has your UTEP experience enhanced your skills and knowledge in each area? a. Think critically Very much Adequately Very little b. Read with comprehension in English Very much Adequately Very little c. Express yourself through speaking in English Very much Adequately Very little d. Express yourself through writing in English Very much Adequately Very little e. Express yourself in a language other than English Very much Adequately Very little f. Understand math concepts Very much Adequately Very little
n = 1218 56.5 42.4 1.1 n = 1064 549 51.6 479 45.0 36 3.4 n = 1054 554 52.6 458 43.5 42 4.0 n = 1078 579 53.7 456 42.3 43 4.0 n = 645 307 47.6 288 44.7 50 7.8 n = 1010 455 45.0 487 48.2 68 6.7 688 516 14
n = 918 48.1 46.5 5.3 n = 1100 600 54.5 459 41.7 41 3.7 n = 1057 546 51.7 460 43.5 51 4.8 n = 964 445 46.2 467 48.4 52 5.4 n = 913 435 47.6 430 47.1 48 5.3 n = 1074 543 50.6 454 42.3 77 7.2 n = 1014 464 45.8 483 47.6 67 6.6 n = 955 439 46.0 452 47.3 64 6.7 n = 936 452 48.3 415 44.3 69 7.4 n = 944 467 49.5 409 43.3 68 7.2 n = 1130 644 57.0 431 38.1 55 4.9 n = 1055 668 63.3 345 32.7 42 4.0 442 427 49
n = 986 54.6 41.2 4.3 n = 1109 648 58.4 421 38.0 40 3.6 n = 1149 744 64.8 374 32.6 31 2.7 n = 1145 740 64.6 368 32.1 37 3.2 n = 1026 602 58.7 383 37.3 41 4.0 n = 1013 615 60.7 365 36.0 33 3.3 n = 1045 619 59.2 390 37.3 36 3.4 n = 964 488 50.6 424 44.0 52 5.4 n = 928 505 54.4 375 40.4 48 5.2 538 406 42 UTEP n = 1320 461 676 157 19 7 % 34.9 51.2 11.9 1.4 0.5
15. Rate the overall quality of the education in your major. a. b. c. d. e. Excellent Good Acceptable Poor Unsure
UTEP n = 1322 1066 28 2 66 135 8 23 8 8 156 150 13 129 3 5 1 38 375 138 7 26 7 1 9 6 1 1 22 3 3 7 20 37 % 80.6 2.6 0.2 6.2 12.7 0.8 2.2 0.8 0.8 14.6 14.1 1.2 12.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 3.6 35.2 10.4 5.1 18.8 5.1 0.7 6.5 4.3 0.7 0.7 15.9 2.2 2.2 5.1 14.5 26.8
Computer Science n = 32 % 25 78.1 0 0 3 4 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0.0 0.0 12.0 16.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3
Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses Individual comments are listed in Appendix A.
UTEP n = 1322 118 2 12 7 1 2 3 1 1 17 2 1 8 1 19 51 % 8.9 1.7 10.2 5.9 0.8 1.7 2.5 0.8 0.8 14.4 1.7 0.8 6.8 0.8 16.1 43.2
Computer Science n = 32 % 1 3.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses Individual comments are listed in Appendix A.
17. Rate the overall quality of your UTEP education? a. b. c. d. e. Excellent Good Acceptable Poor Unsure 310 728 240 29 8
10
UTEP n = 1317 1036 27 97 64 31 17 36 5 101 149 48 53 6 11 18 357 113 9 2 2 13 2 17 19 4 23 168 2 28 1 5 2 4 4 11 74 % 78.7 2.6 9.4 6.2 3.0 1.6 3.5 0.5 9.7 14.4 4.6 5.1 0.6 1.1 1.7 34.5 8.6 8.0 1.8 1.8 11.5 1.8 15.0 16.8 3.5 20.4 12.8 1.2 16.7 0.6 3.0 1.2 2.4 2.4 6.5 44.0
Computer Science n = 32 % 26 81.3 0 3 4 0 0 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.0 11.5 15.4 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 7.7 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0
Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses Individual comments are listed in Appendix A.
11
n = 1312 35.9 58.3 4.1 0.9 0.8 n = 1310 456 34.8 754 57.6 67 5.1 9 0.7 24 1.8 n = 1312 328 25.0 617 47.0 203 15.5 98 7.5 66 5.0 n = 1296 225 672 129 41 229 17.4 51.9 10.0 3.2 17.7 n = 1292 220 623 131 37 281 17.0 48.2 10.1 2.9 21.7 n = 1308 24.1 62.6 7.3 2.4 3.5 n = 1311 299 22.8 596 45.5 286 21.8 106 8.1 24 1.8 315 819 96 32 46
12
n = 1314 35.8 58.8 4.1 0.7 0.7 n = 1314 354 26.9 756 57.5 144 11.0 47 3.6 13 1.0 n = 1304 281 21.5 667 51.2 179 13.7 67 5.1 110 8.4 n = 1313 557 42.4 637 48.5 69 5.3 24 1.8 26 2.0 n = 1311 439 33.5 673 51.3 119 9.1 39 3.0 41 3.1 n = 1312 398 690 126 44 54 30.3 52.6 9.6 3.4 4.1 n = 1313 456 34.7 675 51.4 99 7.5 38 2.9 45 3.4
13
20. How satisfied are you with the availability of your advisor(s)? a. b. c. d. e. Very satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Unsure
14
Computer Science % n = 29 5 10 9 0 1 4 n = 31 11 12 5 2 1 0 n = 29 5 10 10 0 1 3 n = 29 10 8 7 2 1 1 34.5 27.6 24.1 6.9 3.4 3.4 17.2 34.5 34.5 0.0 3.4 10.3 35.5 38.7 16.1 6.5 3.2 0.0 17.2 34.5 31.0 0.0 3.4 13.8 %
n = 1298 31.4 39.5 16.8 4.8 1.5 6.1 n = 1310 494 37.7 478 36.5 171 13.1 95 7.3 14 1.1 58 4.4 n = 1299 359 27.6 514 39.6 248 19.1 82 6.3 17 1.3 79 6.1 n = 1299 416 32.0 464 35.7 225 17.3 93 7.2 23 1.8 78 6.0 407 513 218 62 19 79
15
16
17
UTEP n = 1264 73 19 45 12 10 5 89 39 93 38 23 68 57 115 11 10 202 48 189 16 81 27 23 8 28 133 13 191 % 5.8 1.5 3.6 0.9 0.8 0.4 7.0 3.1 7.4 3.0 1.8 5.4 4.5 9.1 0.9 0.8 16.0 3.8 15.0 1.3 6.4 2.1 1.8 0.6 2.2 10.5 1.0 15.1
Computer Science n = 31 % 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.2 1 3.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.2 2 6.5 2 6.5 1 3.2 3 9.7 1 3.2 1 3.2 7 22.6 0 0.0 4 12.9 0 0.0 2 6.5 2 6.5 1 3.2 0 0.0 2 6.5 1 3.2 0 0.0 7 22.6
Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses Individual comments are listed in Appendix A.
STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES & ACTIVITIES UTEP 26. Indicate your participation in the following activities or % your use of the student support services below: n = 1282 a. Career Services Regularly 98 7.6 Occasionally 454 35.4 Never 489 38.1 Didn't need 170 13.3 Didn't know about 71 5.5 n = 1284 b. Cashiers/Bursar's Office Regularly 511 39.8 Occasionally 646 50.3 Never 81 6.3 Didn't need 26 2.0 Didn't know about 20 1.6
Computer Science n = 32 3 19 9 1 0 n = 32 10 18 2 1 1 31.3 56.3 6.3 3.1 3.1 9.4 59.4 28.1 3.1 0.0 %
19
Computer Science n = 32 7 16 6 2 1 n = 32 5 19 3 3 2 n = 32 7 20 2 2 1 n = 32 8 17 5 2 0 n = 32 11 19 2 0 0 n = 32 0 5 19 6 2 n = 32 10 13 7 1 1 n = 32 0 6 20 4 2 0.0 18.8 62.5 12.5 6.3 31.3 40.6 21.9 3.1 3.1 0.0 15.6 59.4 18.8 6.3 34.4 59.4 6.3 0.0 0.0 25.0 53.1 15.6 6.3 0.0 21.9 62.5 6.3 6.3 3.1 15.6 59.4 9.4 9.4 6.3 21.9 50.0 18.8 6.3 3.1 %
20
Computer Science n = 32 3 17 11 1 0 n = 31 1 13 13 2 2 n = 31 3 14 12 1 1 n = 31 5 21 5 0 0 n = 31 2 16 10 2 1 n = 30 0 0 23 4 3 0.0 0.0 76.7 13.3 10.0 6.5 51.6 32.3 6.5 3.2 16.1 67.7 16.1 0.0 0.0 9.7 45.2 38.7 3.2 3.2 3.2 41.9 41.9 6.5 6.5 9.4 53.1 34.4 3.1 0.0 %
21
Computer Science n = 22 4 11 6 1 0 n = 27 4 11 9 3 0 n = 23 3 10 4 6 0 n = 23 4 9 8 2 0 n = 26 6 12 8 0 0 n = 24 3 12 5 4 0 n = 29 4 11 12 2 0 n=5 1 2 0 2 0 20.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 13.8 37.9 41.4 6.9 0.0 12.5 50.0 20.8 16.7 0.0 23.1 46.2 30.8 0.0 0.0 17.4 39.1 34.8 8.7 0.0 13.0 43.5 17.4 26.1 0.0 14.8 40.7 33.3 11.1 0.0 18.2 50.0 27.3 4.5 0.0 %
22
Computer Science n = 22 7 10 4 1 0 n=6 1 2 2 1 0 n = 18 5 12 1 0 0 n = 14 2 8 3 1 0 n = 17 3 8 5 1 0 n = 26 3 16 5 2 0 n = 18 2 10 3 3 0 n= 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 55.6 16.7 16.7 0.0 11.5 61.5 19.2 7.7 0.0 17.6 47.1 29.4 5.9 0.0 14.3 57.1 21.4 7.1 0.0 27.8 66.7 5.6 0.0 0.0 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 0.0 31.8 45.5 18.2 4.5 0.0 %
23
Computer Science n = 31 % 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 22 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 12.9 71.0
Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses Individual comments are listed in Appendix A.
UTEP CAMPUS ATMOSPHERE 29. How satisfied are you with UTEP's customer service focus? Please explain your rating a. Very Satisfied b. Satisfied c. Dissatisfied d. Very Dissatisfied e. Unsure UTEP n = 1286 130 859 149 47 101 % 10.1 66.8 11.6 3.7 7.9 Computer Science n = 32 % 1 3.1 19 59.4 10 31.3 0 0.0 2 6.3
24
UTEP n = 802 n = 261 4 3 32 12 3 5 7 10 3 35 1 43 7 1 9 27 1 14 4 14 9 82 18 56 2 3 3 2 84 7 6 78 10 13 1 2 30 1 1 108 6 14 29 12 29 64 1.5 1.1 12.3 4.6 1.1 1.9 2.7 3.8 1.1 13.4 0.4 16.5 2.7 0.4 3.4 10.3 0.4 5.4 1.5 5.4 3.4 31.4 6.9 21.5 n = 412 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 20.4 1.7 1.5 18.9 2.4 3.2 0.2 0.5 7.3 0.2 0.2 26.2 1.5 3.4 7.0 2.9 7.0 15.5 %
Computer Science n = 21 % n=7 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 0 0.0 2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 0 0.0 1 14.3 n = 12 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 8.3 1 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 33.3 0 0.0 1 8.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 25.0
Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses Individual comments are listed in Appendix A.
Note: Respondents often expressed both positive and negative comments. Therefore, n's in the sub-groups may not reflect the true number of respondents.
25
UTEP n = 802 n = 129 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 5 8 4 1 1 9 2 8 6 5 14 2 1 62 9 7 0.8 0.8 3.9 0.8 1.6 1.6 0.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.9 6.2 3.1 0.8 0.8 7.0 1.6 6.2 4.7 3.9 10.9 1.6 0.8 48.1 7.0 5.4 %
Computer Science n = 21 % n=2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 0 0.0
Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses Individual comments are listed in Appendix A.
Note: Respondents often expressed both positive and negative comments. Therefore, n's in the sub-groups may not reflect the true number of respondents.
30. The educational level of your parents (or legal guardians) is: a. Neither parent ever attended college b. Neither parent graduated, but one attended college c. Neither parent graduated, but both attended college d. One parent graduated from college e. Both parents graduated from college f. Unsure
UTEP n = 1296 546 150 70 317 197 16 % 42.1 11.6 5.4 24.5 15.2 1.2
26
I appreciate being advised. I respect my advisor. I have good rapport with my advisor. The alloted time is sufficient. I mystified with the advice I receive
When student meet with his advisors, which of the following topics were discussed?
YES Academic performance Carreer goals Student to organization Undergraduate research Doing an Internship Interview for a Job Applying to Graduate School Being Profesional about my work 9 6 3 1 1 1 1 6
NO 4 8 10 12 12 12 12 7
My advisor guides me on course selection. My advisor provides useful feedback on my academic progress. My advisor has helped me set my career goals My advisor informs me of opportunities in and ouside the dept. I communicate well with my advisor. The alloted time is sufficient.
When student meet with his advisors, which of the following topics were discussed?
ALWAYS Academic performance Carreer goals Student to organization Undergraduate research Carreer Services(interview preparation; resum writing) Graduate school Financial Aid/Scholarship Internships 8 9 4 5 4 4 4 3
FREQUENTLY RARELY 10 2 5 4 4 8 4 10 7 7 7 7 3 9 4 11
NEVER 1 3 5 2 3 3 5 3
COMMENTS: 1. Dr. Modave is great at keepimg me on track for my graduation plan. Great at maintaining my schedule for each semester 2. Dr. Modave is a great advisor, always informative and encouraging 3. I cannot imagne having a better advisor then Dr. Taufer. She is extrmely helpful and aware of the CS standards. -I definitely dont think 15 minutes is enough time. Especially for upper division advising. 4. I really appreciate how helpful my advisor has been. 5. He's really good and helps me in making smart choices (Modave)
Computer Science Undergraduate Program Evaluation Report Ann Q. Gates, Patricia J. Teller, and Rolfe Sassenfeld July 21, 2004 Purpose This report documents the process and results of an evaluation of UTEPs Department of Computer Science undergraduate program that was undertaken by Drs. Gates, Teller, and Sassenfeld in May-July 2004. The evaluation was initiated to evaluate the quality of the Computer Science undergraduate program. Process The evaluation focused on the core courses in the undergraduate curriculum: CS1401 (Intro. to CS), CS2401 (Elem. Data Structures/Algorithms), CS2402 (Data Structures), CS3320 (Comp. Arch. II), CS3331 (Adv. OO Programming), CS4375 (Operating Systems), CS3350 (Automata/Computability/Formal Lang.), CS3360 (Design/Implementation Prog. Languages), CS3432 (Comp. Arch. I), CS4310 (Soft. Eng.: Requirements Engineering), and CS4311 (Software Eng: Design and Implementation).The process included the following activities: Examine course outcomes and sequences Review course content, assignments, and exams (this was not completed; such a review requires assignment of content specialists) Review faculty course assessments Interview students and faculty members In addition, the team reviewed the course grade distributions and pass rates. After collecting the data, the evaluation team summarized the results and documented the recommendations. Results
develop the specified knowledge and skills, and the expected preconditions for course sequences will not be met. Review and update course outcomes documents every two years. Each instructor should be reminded of the following: o design the course so that it provides students with opportunities to develop the targeted knowledge and skills, and o develop and use assessment tools that evaluate the extent to which students who pass the course have gained the requisite level of knowledge and skills. Create a dependence tree of courses and indicate on its edges the preconditions and outcomes.
Course Content
This section documents the review of course syllabi that professors provided or that were included in the notebook. The syllabus for a course is a contract between the students and instructor. As such, it should specify the expected course outcomes, the tools that will be used to assess student success with respect to meeting these outcomes, and how the assessment tools will be used to determine final grades. Currently the information in syllabi varies considerably. For example, some syllabi list topics, while others list objectives or outcomes. General Recommendations: Provide faculty members with a syllabus template that forms the basis of any syllabus. Distinguish between objectives and outcomes. Provide a repository to store course history so that a professor can refer to syllabi, text books, and materials used in the past.
The pass-fail rates for courses were analyzed from Fall 1999 to Spring 2004 for the core courses. There was little that could be gleaned from the data. Rates varied widely from semester to semester and instructor to instructor, although there are instances of courses with unusually high pass rates and unusually high fail rates compared to other offerings of the course. A brief summary is given below. The pass rates were calculated by dividing the total number of students who passed the course with A-C by n, the total number registered for the course less those students who received an N, I, or W.
COURSE
CS1401 CS2401 CS2402 CS3320 CS3331 CS3335 CS3350 CS3360 CS3432 CS4310 CS4311
55% 50% 67% 60% 83% 79% 69% 69% 64% 81% 78%
42 12 54 30 29 29 36 13 25 16 28
100% 85% 100% 97% 87% 100% 94% 94% 97% 96% 100%
43 34 16 36 46 37 31 37 36 27 22
74% 72% 78% 83% 85% 93% 83% 88% 86% 93% 92%
76% 72% 80% 82% 87% 92% 79% 84% 81% 93% 92%
Other concerns: Supplementary material covered in courses where the main outcomes do not seem to be mastered. For example, refer to CS3320 and courses that assess high in team or communication skills but not in core competency. Students may not: o have much programming practice throughout the curriculum, o be challenged with large, complex programming assignments until software engineering where they work in teams, o have developed problem solving and strong programming skills, and o have developed sufficient communication skills throughout the curriculum.
General Recommendations: Provide faculty with a template course assessment report. The report should list preconditions and outcomes, as well as the associated mastery levels, evaluate outcomes with respect to all employed assessment tools, indicating if the results are acceptable, discuss shortcomings of the course with respect to expected outcomes, and, when shortcomings exist, suggest possible ways to address these shortcomings. In addition, also it should indicate the number of students registered in the course, the number who withdrew, and the number who passed the course, as well as the grade distribution.
The course assessment report should be stand-alone, i.e., a report should be self contained and understanding it should not require reference to other documents, which are not included in the report. Define a CQI process that uses the course outcomes assessment reports and sample assessment tools.
Faculty Interviews
The interview results reflect the opinions of ten faculty members. The faculty was asked to comment on the causes that comprise the Cause Effect Graph shown in Fig. 1. A summary of the common themes that arose from the interview is given first followed by the actual comments of the faculty organized by the major causes of the Cause Effect Graph. The causes Laboratory and Assignments were grouped as one since the majority did not have additional comments for the Assignments cause.
Fig. 1: Cause Effect Graph used in faculty interview. Summary of Common Themes The following points are the common themes that arose from the faculty interviews. The individual remarks of faculty are provided in the remaining sections. Many faculty members do not know where to find current course outcomes. Faculty members are unclear of the relationship of their courses with others in the department. Coverage of essential skills is problematic, in particular problem solving and programming skills. There is large overhead in teaching an object-oriented language as the first language. TAs are prepared, although supervision is needed. Its important to hold students accountable for their learning and turning assignments in on time. Pair teaching has been effective. Course Content Course outcomes The differences between course outcomes and objectives are unclear. Course outcomes are well defined for CS1401 and CS2401. The faculty member reported that s/he had access to the course outcomes. The faculty member believes that some outcomes are inappropriate and need to be changed. The faculty member did not have outcomes for course (Data Structures) when s/he taught it.
Although the outcomes are well-defined for the main courses, they are not maintained and accessible to all faculty members. I am not aware that the course outcomes for individual courses have ever been evaluated with respect to the program objectives. I dont understand what things students are supposed to be learning in which courses. Relationship to core courses There needs to be a more systematic way to hand-off courses. Courses should be coordinated so that the relationships are clear. I am not convinced that faculty members are aware of the dependencies between courses. Some institutions have coordinators for sets of courses. The coordinators are responsible for maintaining consistency across sections of a sequence of courses. For example, we could have someone monitoring the CS1/2/3 sequence and someone else monitoring the Arch I/II sequence. This does require more work for the coordinators, but it appears to be a successful model elsewhere. Core concepts It is important to avoid overcomplicating what is being taught; OO is simple and should be taught simply and cleanly; do not throw in too much interface; stick with core concepts. Teaching problem-solving skills are as important as designing a solution. Students need to write a lot of programs. Testing is a problem in the CS1 course. Felt that core concepts were covered in Data Structures. The CS1 course should concentrate on core concepts (such as logic, conditional and iterative constructs) and less on the language; is it possible to have a 1-hour follow-up course that covers interfaces and encapsulation. I am not sure how problem solving or reasoning skills are taught and practiced throughout the program. My impression is that the students coming out of data structures are quite intimidated by the prospect of writing programs. I think that by their fourth semester, students should be pretty confident that they can take well-defined, moderately sized, academic problems, decompose them, and write code to solve them. The students I see in the upper division courses are not able to do this. Specific courses The coverage of core concepts in CS1401 is fine. Students going into CS2401 from CS1401 are missing recursion; this concept is not carrying over. There are competing visions of what the entry courses should contain; its important to have a common vision. Students in an upper division course were not able to write a program with loops. Students with programming experience are more likely to complete the entry-level courses. OO is harder than imperative programming; may not be the right language to start with because of the overhead; there is a desire to keep students in one language through the three semesters; there may be a need for a CS-0 course. The course content of CS1 is too much; it takes too much time to teach the OO philosophy. Is it appropriate to spend time on code standards and comments in the entry level courses? Teaching Java in CS1 is giving students a firmer grounding, although language causes problems with students learning the material. With the change made to CS1, it is now possible to cover core concepts in CS2.
Students in data structures had little understanding of basic data structures with respect to what and when to use. There seems to be more focus on code and documentation than problem solving in the entry level courses. Laboratory/Assignments Preparedness of TAs Preparation of TAs would be helpful. The TAs should be informed of the expectations of the professors and the courses. There are not any problems with the TAs. CS1-2 has the best prepared TAs. TAs are good and dedicated. TAs do not seem to be motivated to assist in meeting departmental goals. The TAs are qualified. TAs are qualified; nevertheless, there should be some supervision of the grading and instruction. I am not aware of training for the TAs. Ive trained my TAs. The expectations vary substantially from instructor to instructor, and TA positions are not awarded on the basis of performance as a TA. TA oversight There is a hands-off style. Faculty in CS1401 met weekly with TAs. The faculty did not observe TAs in the laboratory and did not provide detailed grading instructions. There are regular meetings with TAs at which goals and grading criteria are discussed. Trusted grading of TA although may need to check more closely. TAs knew what was expected. The instructors had weekly meetings with TAs; reviewed test cases with TAs. Assignments and assessment of labs Problem-solving is missing in laboratory assignments. Assignments are not an issue. Its important to have a progression from small to large programs going from CS1 to Data Structures. Upper division courses, including Automata, should include laboratory assignments. It saves time in the long run to have TAs grade the students on the spot. It is necessary to tell TAs explicitly to remove points. Some TAs do not give assessments back in timely manner. There are no quizzes in labs. Labs supported the course goals. Students write 1-3 programs every week [CS1-2]. Have invested time in setting up CS1-3 courses; question that needs to be answered is whether we want flexibility. There is inadequate assessment, but problem is lack of time. Not enough assignments may be a problem. In Data Structures there were no labs because it was summer, but students had a lab that they built upon.
The laboratory assignments in the beginning courses should be straight forward and focused on building the students understanding of the core concepts; the interface should be emphasized less. It does not appear that assignments systematically progress to higher complexity either in particular courses or over the program. Other The TAs typically work more than 20 hours per week. There has been a reduction in TAs, but not in the lab sections. There are 2 TAs for CS1 with 63 students. TAs report that they spend a lot of time with students. TAs give some lecture. TAs are critical because they have one-on-one contact with students. More TA support in entry courses would be helpful. Collected feedback from students and gave them back to the TAs. Lab availability may be a problem; the labs are not open on Sunday and the Saturday hours have been reduced. Students need to be questioned more to ensure their understanding. Its important to encourage group learning in the laboratory, but students must be held accountable for their learning. Students Preparedness Students do not know the structure of the curriculum after CS1401. Students are aware of context; the topics are motivated. The CS1-2 courses motivated the CS curriculum. Students see relationship between previous courses. Students lack context for understanding importance of data structures. Students do not have basic understanding of discrete math. Students do not seem to enjoy the field; theyre doing too many things and taking too many courses. Students I see in upper division courses seem surprised when I describe to them the landscape of technology jobs and the relationships between what we try to show them in the program and what they may need to know in the workforce. They also seem surprised when I tell them I expect them to have working code by the deadline. Students have passed ESOL courses but cannot pass English. There is a delicate balance between retaining average or under-prepared students and challenging the good and fully prepared. I have seen a number of very good senior students with very bad grades simply because they were too bored with the course work. At UT Austin, they face a similar problem. They have instituted a type of honors course specifically to challenge the better students. I doubt if we have the resources for such a thing here, but we should be thinking of how to keep the level of excitement high for the better students while not losing the majority. Cheating Cheating does not seem to be a problem in the entry-level courses. Accountability/Motivation
There is tension in accountability. Its important to hold students accountable. Students should be held accountable. Students must be held accountable for their learning. Students can be motivated by the instructor and TAs.
Homework/Study habits Study habits of students are a problem; those that have good study habits do well and those that dont have good study habits will not pass. Problem with homework being turned in on time. The study and work habits of students are lacking. Students need to realize how hard that they have to work. It is important to be strict on late assignments and on grading. Students lack motivationturn in assignments late and have excuses for not doing homework. Students need to realize that turning work in late is unacceptable without a valid excuse. Instruction Motivation to meet departmental goals TAs are not motivated to meet the departmental goals. This may be a problem. For new faculty, there may be a problem with motivation for meeting goals and awareness of core courses. Its not clear that the TAs are aware of the departmental goals. Not all of the instructors (faculty, instructors, TAs) are motivated to meet the stated department goals. Faculty need to be on board to understand course objectives and outcomes. The educational mission and objectives do not match. Content/Teaching There is at least one question on the exams that pushes students into deeper thought Students have a practice exam before the final Instructors taught the core concepts and invested a lot of time into explaining material. Not all faculty members have a strong background on the core concepts. In pair teaching, more experienced teacher takes on OO concepts. Pair teaching works. There should consistency on who teaches the courses. Some professors do not share the same thoughts on how the core classes should be taught. It would be helpful to have a discussion with other instructors over ones course outcomes and assessment in order to put the course in perspective and understand what could be improved; this also will help with defining the relationship with other courses. I do not understand the goals of each course in the program. I think I understand how my courses fit into the needs of following courses. I am not surprised to see different results from different instructors. I dont think there is general agreement on what capabilities students should demonstrate before passing a course, even among those instructors teaching the same course. I can think of times when instructors were encouraged to pass students who may not have been prepared for the next course. While we all are collecting data on assessment, it does not appear to be common to evaluate the data in an effort to identify and rectify weaknesses.
Remedial Assistance Remedial or additional assistance is available but students are not seeking it. It would be helpful to have best students spending 1-2 hours a week to help other students. There is a problem with remediation and additional assistance. Departmental tutoring is not available. It would be helpful to have a culture in which more senior students help students coming into the program. Students who volunteer for peer tutoring should be acknowledged.
Other Comments Faculty members are overburdened; need to prioritize the steps to be taken. Arch. I could be pre-requisite to the CS 3360 course. It is difficult to find a qualified TA for CS3360. Faculty should not be given core classes when they first come; pairings are important when teaching core classes. There does not appear to be any reward for faculty who spend the time to do a good job teaching. Institutionally, mediocre teaching is acceptable, and anything better than mediocre is unrecognized. While my course assessments (and my student evaluations) indicate that I should spend more time teaching, I am being told to spend less time teaching. (Thus, not only is mediocre teaching acceptable, it is encouraged.) Did I misread the mission statements?
Student Interviews
The comments given were recorded by Kay Roy during a discussion with Software Engineering students regarding coding strengths/weaknesses as related to the CS curriculum, and the impact of coding and scheduling issues on their projects. Inconsistent lower-level courses. Some of them require a lot of code and some dont. Depends on the professor. Dont throw [students] right into coding during the first courses. [The professors] need to talk about concepts, design, and pseudo-code. In response to the question of why their teams test cases used hard-coded values: In no class was there a focus on the way you should plan and design a project, [such as] how to approach the problem. Need more problem-solving. As seniors, havent coded in awhile. Upper [classes] need more [programming assignments]. There is a lot of cheating. (Other students seemed to agree with this.) (About amount of coding in earlier courses): Depends on the professor. With some you learned a lot about assembler, but with some you did not. In Data Structures, we did not get a lot of coding. (About how to avoid last-minute code/integration/test problems on their projects): [In Software Engineering] Maybe configuration management should be taught earlier in the course. In the fall? {In Software Engineering) Maybe have checkpoints/deliverables for code segments. Pacing [of the second semester] doesnt seem as good as in the fall. (About how lower-level CS students can be motivated): Need to be turned on to enjoyment of coding and excited about it instead of dreading and avoiding it. Where in the coursework are general good programming practices taught? Issue of TA accountability (check students to make sure they do their own coding).
Summary and Recommendations 1. Teaching. Pair teaching has provided an effective approach for preparing new professors to teach a course. Faculty members report that this is working well. To help with the wide variations in how courses are taught and to create an additional resource for instructors, it is recommended that course histories be maintained in a central place. It also is essential for courses that are not pair taught and for cases when a new faculty member must pick up a course unexpectedly. The history should include syllabi, course preconditions and outcomes, outcomes assessment reports, text books, homework assignments, laboratory assignments, lecture notes, handouts, and exams. An on-line repository or shared directory could be helpful for this purpose. Also, Connexions at Rice University is a system that could be helpful. Action Items. a. Request approval of faculty for creating a course material repository. b. If approved, brainstorm on ways repository can be created and discuss content of repository and assign task to appropriate faculty member(s). 2. Course Outcomes. The Curriculum Committee should be responsible for making the latest course preconditions and outcomes accessible to faculty members and students. The Committee has had discussions on creating a common repository. The evaluation committee is asking the Curriculum Committee to consider a repository on the departmental web site. The Committee should review and update course outcome documents every two years and discuss proposed changes with faculty. The Committee should ensure that each course provides mastery level 3 of some knowledge and skills and outcomes do not include preconditions at mastery level 3. Action Items. a. Request approval of faculty to make course outcomes available to students. b. Determine where the outcomes will be stored and how they will be maintained. 3. Honors Course. Check the feasibility of instituting an honors course designed to challenge the better students. This will address the issue of preparedness of students. In particular, it provides a way to keep the level of excitement high for the better students while not losing the majority. Action Item. Assign a faculty member the task of determining the feasibility of instituting a CS honors course. 4. CQI. Set an informal and formal process for course assessment. The informal process will consist of a report-out at an end-of-semester faculty meeting of what worked well in the course, what did not work well, suggestions and action items, and other general observations. The formal process will consist of a formal report that documents a comprehensive review of the assessment results. The reports for a course will be due every two years. 5. Action Items: a. Request faculty approval for a staggered schedule to review core courses every second year; thus, sample assessment results would be collected every other year or each time the course changes as a result of a new instructor or new syllabus. b. Request faculty approval to assign an assessment evaluation team for each of the following clusters: Fundamentals (even year fall semester): CS1401 (Intro. to CS), CS2401 (Elem. Data Structures/Algorithms), CS2402 (Data Structures)
c.