January, 2008 The Computer Science Department's mission is to prepare students for living in and helping build a society increasingly affected by information technology. From basic technological literacy to the development of problem-solving skills, the General Education program will prepare students to understand the ethical and social impact of computing on society and the use of computing technology as they contribute to the modern world. Through experience, knowledge, and skills ranging from basic theory through experimental techniques to engineering methodology, the Computer Science degree programs will prepare students to be productive citizens who contribute in many ways to the information society that forms the backbone of much of the industry and business in the state of Washington. Computer Science faculty and students working in partnership with each other and with interdisciplinary colleagues will help address significant local, regional, and national problems through the use of this flexible, robust discipline. There have been no changes in the mission over the last three years.
January, 2008 The goals and activities of the department have been arrived at through both a top-down and a bottom-up process. The university and college missions set the background and environment for the direction and scope of the department's goals and activities. Student and faculty input along with professional society and industry guidelines contribute to the specifics of the program along with their corresponding activities.
January, 2008 Goal I. Promote the role of computer science and computer literasy in undergraduate education at Central Washington University. Goal II. Offer undergraduate programs that train students as computer specialists with a fundamental understanding of technology. Goal III. Maintain an intellectually stimulating learning environment where diverse perspectives are valued and encouraged. Goal IV. Sustain a productive team of faculty and staff. Goal V. Play a leadership role in scholarship by making basic and relevant scientific contributions to our respective subdisciplines. Goal VI. Build interdisciplinary research and an associated Masters Degree program. No changes have been made since the last program review.
January, 2008 The department, through an annual evaluation of instruction and peer-review, has developed a method for developing consensus concerning the goals of the program, student learning outcomes and faculty professional development. Currently the department carries out this evaluation during the Spring Faculty Development Day. The evaluation consists of two pieces: (1) a peer-review of teaching together with a review of other assessment measures and a review and (2) setting of faculty members professional achievements and goals. Being a small department, both pieces are reviewed by the committee of the whole. Additional review, particularly with respect to the capstone courses, occurs as specific milestones are achieved during the courses. The department requires faculty participation in the annual peer-review of teaching and assessment of student learning outcomes. Here each faculty member will conduct a thorough review of one class (or perhaps a pair of sequenced classes. Each faculty member is asked to prepare a complete portfolio for the class (or classes). [Different classes are to be presented each year until the department has reviewed the entire curriculum. The entire curriculum is generally reviewed over a three year period.] The purpose of the review is two-fold. The first purpose is to review the current professional instructional development of each faculty member. The second purpose is to provide another tool for our curriculum review. Portfolios include the following information: textbook, syllabus, objectives, notes, slides, other materials including web-based, programming projects, exams, and samples of student work. Additionally, the faculty reviews the collected assessment data which includes results of the capstone courses, results of the Major Field Test, results of the senior colloquium, senior exit interviews, comments from graduates and participation in undergraduate research. In the professional development review, each faculty member provides the current year's goals, accomplishments and a self-evaluation. In the goal setting, each faculty member proposes goals for the next year that are reviewed, by the committee and the Dean, for appropriateness for professional development and appropriateness to departmental, college and university mission. The Department also believes that this is an appropriate time for faculty to propose filling a particular niche or role within the department. As with the goals, the committee and the Dean review such proposals for appropriateness for professional development and appropriateness to departmental, college and university mission.
January, 2008 The Computer Science faculty believe that the process described above is effective in assessing our program. Further, we believe that we are effectively achieving our goals. Perhaps it is appropriate at this point to quote form the report of our last program review. --- The CS department has a strong faculty that function well as a unit. Faculty research and grant production is outstanding for a unit of their size. Especially impressive is the undergraduate research component. There are several ongoing research projects that have active student participation. The curriculum is thoughtfully reviewed on a regular basis and I see no mojor weaknesses in the program. Although faculty are teaching a heavy load students are pleased with the CS courses and the instruction. Students repeatedly commented on the extraordinary effort made by both faculty and staff to provide services and quality instruction. Staff and faculty have a strong working relationship, and staff support is adequate. Communication between CS faculty, CS chair, Dean of Sciences and upper adminsitration functions well, and is honest and frank.
January, 2008 Reponses to "Four Immediate Needs" indentified in the last program review. 1. Air-conditioning in Hebeler Hall In a meeting with Dean Miller of the College of the Sciences and Bill Vertrees, AVP for Facilities Planning, Bill indicated that he believed that funding for the air conditioning project would be approved by the legislature for this biennium. Since that funding would be available in July 2007 at the earliest, the estimate was that the air conditioning project could be completed by the summer of 2008. 2. Multimedia presentation equipment for labs and classrooms As of October 2006, all classrooms that Computer Science uses for instruction will have new multimedia presentation equipment installed since the program review. This includes HB 106, 112, 116, and 121. At the same meeting mentioned in the prior point, Bill indicated that he would work with Doug Ryder and David Kaufman to bring multimedia presentation equipment into the instructional computing lab HB 203. 3. Space a. Faculty/Student Research Labs This fall the Department completed moving and revamping three student faculty research labs and one student project lab. The CWU Imaging lab was moved to a larger space in HB 208. This lab is used to support the research done by Dr. Kovalerchuk and his students. A new distributing computing research lab was developed in the space vacated by the Imaging Lab, HB 205. This lab is used to support the research done by Drs. Andonie and Schwing and their students. A research lab dedicated to Accessibility computing was built in HB 204A. This lab is used to support the research of Dr. Gellenbeck and his students. Computing equipment was upgraded for each of these labs. Finally, the Linux and Networking Lab in HB 207 had its equipment upgraded this summer. Dr. Eastman and his students conduct projects in this lab. On an additional note, the Computer Science Department Systems Engineer, Fred Stanley has been able to flexibly respond to Senior Project needs. For example this year Fred will put together systems for three project teams that special server access. These teams will be housed in HB 204A, HB 205 and HB 214A. b. Students With the consolidation of Academic Services in Hertz Hall, the Writing Center moved out of the former Library space in Hebeler. This space was then reassigned to Computer Science. With the help of Doug Ryder and Carmen Rahm, the department has built an excellent project and study area for Computer Science students. Approximately half the room is dedicated to space for computer workstations with the other half of the room holding work tables and whiteboards. This has proved to be a popular venue for students to work on projects and form study groups. c. Adjunct Office Space At this point the department has two adjunct faculty sharing one office. We do not agree with the reviewer that changing this room assignment is an immediate need. (Since that time the department has added a third adjunct who has a separate office in HB 205B. We continue to believe this is adequate space for adjunct faculty.) 4. Master's Degree in CS The Department has just completed an NOI which is being reviewed for submission to the HECB.
January, 2008 This section will highlight the essence of the Computer Science Department accomplishments in three areas (1) students and curriculum, (2) faculty, and (3) facilities. Students and Curriculum 1. Computer science students have been successfully involved in student research as measured by their participation in SOURCE, national conference and journal publications, regional and national conference presentations. 2. Two new focus areas have been initiated within the program: Web Development Technologies and Computer Networking and Security. 3. The department has responded to a growing general education need by expanding the number of CS 101 and CS 105 sections offered. 4. Major NSF grants, CSEMS and Boeing scholarships and STEP grants, support students, student recruitment and student diversity. 5. The department has instituted a proactive advising program. Pre-majors' progress is actively reviewed quarterly. Majors are matched with an advisor based on student focus area and faculty expertise. Students meet regularly with this advisor to ensure degree progress is being made. Faculty 6. All faculty have an active, productive scholarship program resulting in peer-reviewed publication. 7. Faculty research and grant activities have seen a significant increase over the last five years and are well beyond what is expected for a teaching institution. Facilities 8. With the cooperation of the Dean and ITS and with the judicious use of resources and grants, the department has kept instructional laboratory hardware and software state-of-the-art. Similarly, the department has expanded and added important new instructional lab space. 9. The department has built a major research lab. 10. The department hosted a major regional computer science conference in 2004.
January, 2008 This section will look at the perceived challenges of the Computer Science Department and a look at what has been and is being done to meet these challenges. It is divided into two sections (1) students and curriculum and (2) staff. Students and Curriculum 1. Due to the ever-changing nature of computer science, the greatest challenge is to maintain a solid core set of courses and to augment these courses with a strong set of supplemental courses to meet the diverse desires and needs of our students. The department will continue the annual review process. The department will also continue to commit development resources to keep faculty active in issues related to curriculum development, particularly in national and regional conferences and special interest groups. 2. The department is experiencing the effects of the national trend with decreasing major enrollment. The department is working with the Admissions Office to develop a recruiting strategy. Components of the strategy will include high school and community college visits and promotion of our scholarship and undergraduate research programs. 3. The preparation and general level of the incoming students is of continuing concern to the faculty. Through the recruiting efforts described above, we hope to help increase the level of incoming students. The introduction of the CS 112, Foundations of Computer Science course has helped increase students' preparedness. Programs like the mentoring program with Computer Science Scholarship recipients have also been useful in addressing these concerns. One objective would be to identify resources to help expand this program. Staff 4. Over the last five years, the department has added a major research lab, and has added and expanded several instructional labs; yet the department still has a single systems engineer to keep these systems running. The department will work to hire a student assistant. This is less than an ideal solution. With the size of the labs, it is time to look for resources to share the hiring of an additional engineer.
January, 2008 Almost all current and future human endeavors will involve information technology and computer automation in one form or another. Understanding the implicit and explicit impact of these effects is an essential part of leading an enlightened, productive life. For example, consider the impact of information technology and automation on disseminating information and mobilizing help during political campaigns. One of the primary tools for these activities is the internet. Further, the act of voting itself is controversially tied to computer automation. Responsible citizenship requires an understanding of the issues involved and the ability to use the technological tools. In addition, a thorough, well-grounded background combined with an appreciation of the ethical issues involved is essential for those involved in building and shaping this technology. The Computer Science Department through its general education and major/minor programs directly addresses these lifelong learning needs particularly in the technology arena. By encouraging students to participate in the scholarship experience, the department is educating the individuals that will contribute to building future technology. The intellectual depth and breadth of the Computer Science programs is exemplified in its scholarship activities. Members of the faculty have been particularly effective in establishing interdisciplinary research programs. For a small department, the faculty have established a strong record in publishing and grant awards. Student-faculty and student-student interaction in real-world applications and scholarship activities are part of the key to this success.
January, 2008 Once a decade, computer professionals from business, industry, and education get together and analyze the needs and trends in computer education. The most recent curriculum review was published with the title Curriculum 2001. The department carried out a total curriculum review in 2000 based on advanced releases of the document. The review was completed with just after Curriculum 2001 was issued and the new curriculum was published for students beginning in the 2002 academic year. The organization of the computer science undergraduate program was one of the major results of this review. Under the revised curriculum each is requiredstudent to take a set of specified core courses and to work out a focus area with the guidance of an advisor. Coherence This process along with our annual review has created a curriculum that encorporates the recognized basis for computer science students augmented with both traditional focus areas and those that are developing in our rapidly evolving discipline. In essence by adopting the curriculum to match the basics of Curriculum 2001 we ensure that our students have meet professional and industry recognized standards. By providing both traditional and evolving focus areas the curriculum responds to the regional and national needs of the computing industry. Breadth In our program review document, we summarized how the core courses in current, updated curriculum match recommendations the CS Body of Knowledge recommendations found in Curriculum 2001. Note that the core courses required of all majors in the computer science program cover almost 88% of the CS Body of Knowledge identified by Curriculum 2001. Further, when one includes popular elective courses (Networking and Data Communications, Graphics I, Parallel Processing, and Artificial Intelligence, coverage of the CS Body of Knowledge is over 98%. Depth As noted above, the curriculum provides both traditional and evolving focus areas which respond to the regional and national needs of the computing industry. We believe that advising is the key to success here. Pre-major and early entry-to-major students meet with the department faculty to discuss various focus areas the student might persue. Major students then meet each term with an advisor who has a specialty in the desired focus area of each student. One purpise of this advising is to ensure that the choice of elective courses truely provides depth of study in the chosen focus area. Effective Sequencing of Courses For the Computer Science Department, effective sequencing begins with the fact that our curriculum encorporates the recognized basis for computer science education. Our annual review takes us through the curriculum as taught on a regular basis, ensuring that we remain focused on the appropriate content of our courses while allowing for the introduction of advances as necessary. From the student point of view, regular advising guarentees students sequence coureses properly while still creating schedules that lead to timely graduation. Synthesis of Student Learning Perhaps the primary tool used by the department is the two-term senior capstone course required of all majors. In this course, students, working in project teams, develop a real project solicited from members of the university and the community in general. The projects require a deomnstration fo skills aquired over their academic career. Students must produce industry standard documents and make regular status presentatons through out the courses. These artifacts provide a principle review component for our annual assessment of the program. A second major demonstration of the synthesis of student learning is through the active undergraduate research program the department has. Students regularly participate in SOURCE and regional, national, and even international conferences.
January, 2008 Disciplinary Standards and Professional Standards Here it is appropriate to note again that once a decade, computer professionals from business, industry, and education get together and analyze the needs and trends in computer education. The most recent curriculum review was published with the title Curriculum 2001. The department carried out a total curriculum review in 2000 based on advanced releases of the document. The review was completed with just after Curriculum 2001 was issued and the new curriculum was published for students beginning in the 2002 academic year. The organization of the computer science undergraduate program was one of the major results of this review. The department then reviews the curriculum annually with an in-depth look at each course occurring at least every three years. Two years ago the department made a major redesign of the main programming and problem solving sequence of courses in large part because of this analysis. Students also take the Major Field Test. The general trend in the results from AY 99-00 through AY 03-04 was increasing. Results have stabized at an acceptable level since then with the exception of the scores in the Theory catagory last year. Because of that the course at the culmination of the "theory" sequence of courses has been redesigned and will be monitored closely during our review this spring. Employer Needs The main measures that the department uses in this area are: (1a)performance in the capstones courses along with (1b) feedback from the clients associated with the capstone course projects, (2) senior exit interviews, (3) intership and cooperative education feedback, and (4) employer feedback. Two years ago based on feedback in areas (1), (2) and (3) that the majority of graduating seniors would start their careers as testing programmers, we increased the testing component of the senior capstone courses. Graduate School Expectations We use (1) interviews with program graduates in graduate school and feedback from their advisors along with (2) our faculty who have extensive prior experience in graduate supervision and (3) student participation in undergraduate research to assess the currency of the curriculum relative to graduate school. We have been particularly pleased with the performance of our students in undergradutate research as evidenced by their participation in SOURCE, regional and national conferences and co-authorship of peer-reviewed papers with national distribution.
January, 2008 The department specifically considers the results of the following in measuring and assessing the student learning outcomes, reviewing the curriculum and making alterations. 1. All seniors participate in the Major Field Test published by ETS. In addition to an overall score, the test provides scores on three (formerly four) major indicators in undergraduate computer science education. 2. All seniors participate in a two-term capstone sequence of courses. Results of this sequence course form part of the consideration of our assessment of student learning outcomes. 3. All seniors participate in a senior colloquium. Results of this course form part of the consideration of our assessment of student learning outcomes. 4. All seniors participate in exit interviews. Feedback from these interviews form part of the consideration of our assessment of student learning outcomes. 5. The department interviews recent graduates. Results of these interviews form part of the consideration of our assessment of student learning outcomes. 6. Many students participate in undergraduate research, independent studies, cooperative education and internships. The faculty considers the effectiveness of these projects and activities in furthering the goals of the students. 7. All students participate in the core curriculum. Review of these courses and student performance help measure the breath of the program. 8. The faculty conducts an annual peer review of instruction. The primary purpose of this review is two-fold. In addition to reviewing faculty performance, it allows the faculty to take an in-depth look a several courses. As noted above, the department also reviews the program curriculum with respect to the recommendations of current experts in the field of computer science education, the most recent being Curriculum 2001. Participation of all seniors is assured as all measures are tied to specific course requirements (this includes participation in the MFT and exit interviews that are part of the course requirements in the senior colloquium).
January, 2008 As a small department, all assessment and accreditation activities are created and/or reviewed by a committee of the whole either at faculty meetings or meeting as the curriculum committee.
January, 2008 As a small department, all assessment and accreditation activities are created and/or reviewed by a committee of the whole. Specifically, these results are reviewed at faculty meetings and curriculum committee meetingss as they become available. They also become input for the end-of-the-year review.
January, 2008 The department offers courses that satisfy two aspects of the "basic" requirements in general education. CS 101 Computer Basics is a computer literacy, MS Office packages course that meets the computer literacy requirement. CS 105 The Logical Basis of Computing is a course that introduces the basics of problem solving and algorithm development. This course meets the basic logic requirement. 1. The General Education Committee of the Faculty Senate supervises the coordination of the courses developed for computer literacy. Student performance on exams in each of five content areas is used to assess the student learning objectives. 2. Recent changes in the general education course CS 105, Logical Basis of Computing, ensure that this courses encorporates problem solving by having teams develop algorithmic solutions to problems. Student performance on these projects is used to assess the student learning objectives.
January, 2008 As with most science and engineering students, written and oral communications provides one of the major challenges to our majors. With this in mind the department has adopted this extension of one of the basic general education learning goals. Graduates will have the ability to communicate effectively. To this end, students in our program take a course in technical writing and have required writing and oral presentation assignments in several classes. The assessment of this requirement is based an artifacts collected. Specifically the major documents written for the milestones of the capstone courses and the associated status presentations. Presently the results of this assessment show that this student learning outcome is being met.
January, 2008 The Department does not currently have a graduate program. As noted above, getting a master's program in place is one of the major goals of the department.
January, 2008
January, 2008
January, 2008 The department does not currently offer any instruction via distance education.
January, 2008
January, 2008
January, 2008 None of the courses listed below were part of distance education. Blackboard: some sections of the introductory major courses, CS 110, 111, and 112. Web-based: All Computer Science courses (including general education courses) have extensive web material.
January, 2008
January, 2008 The department offers three programming courses at the Pierce County center in support of the EET program. In conjunction with the EET department, the department reviews the qualificatons of the adjunct chosen to teach the classes. The department reivews the syllabus prior to the class being offered and finally, the department reviews results at the end of each term a class is offered.
January, 2008 Advising Policies and Services The department believes that advising is a major component of the success of the program. To that end, pre-major and major students are required to be advised every term. As part of this advising process, pre-major students develop a graduation plan and have progress toward meeting the entry requirements reviewed each term. Students who are not making significant progress can then be advised in a proactive manner. In any case, during the term in which they plan complete entry requirements, students must submit a formal application to the department office. This application is reviewed at the end of the term after grades are posted. Students that fail to meet the entry requirements, are dropped from more advanced courses, and asked to meet with the department chair to review their situation and discuss future plans (which may include redoing an entry course if appropriate). Once students are accepted to the major, they interact with one of the full-time faculty members. Faculty are assigned to advise students in focus areas that correspond with their professional expertise. Advisor Preparation Even faculty that have been active advisors prior to arriving at CWU need training to succeed in a new system. By departmental policy, faculty in their first year at CWU are set up with an advising mentor in order to develop a set of advising procedures and files and to develop an understanding of our departmental programs. These faculty will advise jointly with their mentor throughout their first year. Commencing in their second year, faculty move to independently advise students and take on an average advisee load. Student Handbooks and Other Advising Information Please refer to the following web sites: Undergraduate Handbook - http://www.cwu.edu/~cs_dept/UgHandbook.html; Information for Prospecitve Students - http://www.cwu.edu/~cs_dept/UGHprospect.html; Information for Current Students - http://www.cwu.edu/~cs_dept/UGHcurrent.html; Advising Information - http://www.cwu.edu/~cs_dept/advisors.html.
January, 2008 Such courses are first referred to the department chair. The chair will make a decision on transferability if the course lies within the expertise of the chair otherwise the information is passed to a faculty member with that expertise. Minimally, the department requires a syllabus listing learning objective, content, and book. On some rare occasions this may not be enough information, in which case students may be asked to take a short quiz on key points of the class.
January, 2008 The department engages in the following recruiting activities. We contact by mail and/or e-mail all prospective students identified by the admissions office. The department contacts local high schools to talk with potential students there. The department has been successful in obtaining scholarship money for students in our programs from the National Science Foundaton and Boeing. We provide prospective students with information about the program and information about our scholarships. We also provide posters and flyers containingthis information to the admissions office. In addition, the department has two outreach programs intended to help increase the diversity of our student body. Both of these programs work with grade school students where a majority of students at the school have backgrounds that are underrepresented in the computing disciplines. One program looks at graphical programming and the other program involves students in the building and programming of robots. The department does not currently have a program that seeks accreditation. As an aside, the department does co-sponsor the Computer Engineering Technology that is part of the Electrical Engineering Technology degree. This program requires about half of its courses from Cmputer Science. The program is ABET accredited. Information concerning this program will be found with the Electrical Engineering Technology program.
January, 2008 As noted earlier, the department believes that advising is a major component of the success of the program. To that end, pre-major and major students are required to be advised every term. As part of this advising process, pre-major students develop a graduation plan and have progress toward meeting the entry requirements reviewed each term. Students who are not making significant progress can then be advised in a proactive manner. This includes directing them to the Math and English Centers as necessary.
January, 2008 Our student club (a student chapter of the ACM - one fo two professional societies for computer professionals) provides tutoring services for the first two major classes. The club also schedules professionals to come and talk about career opportunities and Career Service representatives to discuss topics such as job hunting, internships, resume and cover letter writing and interviewing skills.
January, 2008 Over the past three years, undergraduate students in Cmputer Science have achieved the following: - Twnety-four students have participated in 15 SOURCE presentations - Twelve students have had had nine presentations and external publications - Twenty-one students have been selected as Computer Science Outstanding Graduates - Eleven students have graduated as Dean Scholars - One student received and Outstanding Achievement Award from the Center for Excellence in Leadership
January, 2008 Students are informed at their regular advising sessions about the opportunities available through Career Services to all levels of students. The studnet club also schedules professionals to come and talk about career opportunities and Career Service representatives to discuss topics such as job hunting, internships, resume and cover letter writing and interviewing skills. Finally several classes talk about career opportunities especially the capstone course and the senior colloquium.
January, 2008 We believe that through the activities of extenal program review combined with annual program assessment, we have established a process for fairly evaluating our program and planning program changes. Changes in the last five years show that the program is vital and that is can react in a flexible way to changes and new focus areas within the discipline. Summary reports containg data and describing changes can be found at the departmental website http://www.cwu.edu/~cs_dept/accred&review.html.
January, 2008 Staffing Plan and the Full-time to Part-time Ratio An overview of our staffing plan can be easily given since almost all computer science courses are four credits and each full-time faculty member is responsible for 36 worload units (or credits) meaning that a full-time faculty member provides resources to teach nine courses. The chair is responsible for six courses due to release time for administrative work. Thus four full-time faculty and the chair can provide instruction for 42 courses. In addition, the department hires adjunct (part-time) faculty to cover 16 course sections. Thus the ration of full-time to part-time is 42/16 or 2.6/1. The department currently offers 15 sections of general education courses and 43 sections of major and service related courses annually. As you can see the adjunct instructors basically cover the general education portion of our instructional load while the full-time faculty cover the major and service portion. It is the opinion of the department that this is an appropriate mix of full-time to part-time staff and that it covers the mission of the department appropriately. Future Staffing: The following comments go beyand the current level of service which would probably require no increase in staffing. However, consideration of the potential change in the program is timely due to state funding and potential demand. The state views computer science as a high demand area although national trend in computer science programs have had enrollment form steady to shrinking slightly. The department began a plan to look at adding a new track to the undergraduate program which would provide more focus on applicaton and less on analysis (the more traditional approach to computer science). Variants of this direction are being tried at several computer science programs across the country. The course CS 112, Foundatons of Computer Science, wiil be the first to encorporatie this philosophy and that will occur commencing in the Winter of 2008. In any case, if this succeeds the department would expect to add about 25 FTES and would probably need to add eight new courses to support the new track. This would obviously require an additional faculty member to deliver these courses. Support for such a faculty member could come from the high demand funding that the state is providing the university.
January, 2008 Development Funding and Activities Program review and continuing assessment have demonstratied that the deaprtment has a competent, vital faculty. The department has been successful in providing faculty resources for development. Currently faculty members are provided a minimum of $2150 for development activities. This support comes from the Provost's Office, the Dean's Office, the Office of Research and Graduate programs and the department. Development activities include conference attendance for presentation, workshops, and educational opportunities. Development funds have also been used to equip research labs. The department has also recently put together a plan that has allowed our faculty to take sabbatical for the first time (this had proved to be a difficult dilemma given a small faculty with a program that demands a large variety of courses annually). Remediating Deficiencies: First the department attempts to be proactive faculty address teaching, scholarship and service expectations. Faculty arriving in the Computer Science Department are assigned a mentor (or perhaps several mentors in each of the traditional areas of evaluation) through out the pre-tenure period. While we have been generally pleased with the results, it is not surprisingly uniformly successful. It is perhaps easiest to describe our policy by relating a recent case. In this case, our annual peer-review indicated that one of the tenure-track faculty members was not meeting departmental goals for teaching effectiveness. The department (through the chair) set up a program to help the faculty member improve performance. The department worked with the Dean of the College of Education and Professional Studies (CEPS) to generate a program with specific goals for the faculty member in question. Also in conjunction with the Dean of CEPS, two mentors (one an expert in teaching technology-based subject matter and the other an expert in connecting with students) were chosen to work with the faculty member. It is the belief of the department that this would have formed an effective program for dealing with this concern. In this case, the solution was not fully tested as the faculty member resigned shortly after the program was put together.
January, 2008 Full-time Faculty: The Central Evaluation Activity As with all university faculty, computer science faculty members are expectied to contribute to three areas: instruction, scholarly activites, and service. The department believes that proper professional advancement occurs when faculty honestly assess themselves and set goals for future developement. The department also believes that it is important to carry out such activites annually. To that end and as noted earlier, the department carries out this evaluation during the Spring Faculty Development Day. The evaluation consists of two pieces: (1) a peer-review of teaching together with a review of other assessment measures and a review and (2) setting of faculty members professional achievements and goals. Being a small department, both pieces are reviewed by the committee of the whole. Additional review, particularly with respect to the capstone courses, occurs as specific milestones are achieved during the courses. The department requires faculty participation in the annual peer-review of teaching and assessment of student learning outcomes. Here each faculty member will conduct a thorough review of one class (or perhaps a pair of sequenced classes. Each faculty member is asked to prepare a complete portfolio for the class (or classes). [Different classes are to be presented each year until the department has reviewed the entire curriculum. The entire curriculum is generally reviewed over a three year period.] The purpose of the review is two-fold. The first purpose is to review the current professional instructional development of each faculty member. The second purpose is to provide another tool for our curriculum review. Portfolios include the following information: textbook, syllabus, objectives, notes, slides, other materials including web-based, programming projects, exams, and samples of student work. Additionally, the faculty reviews the collected assessment data which includes results of the capstone courses, results of the Major Field Test, results of the senior colloquium, senior exit interviews, comments from graduates and participation in undergraduate research. In the professional development review, each faculty member provides the current year's goals, accomplishments and a self-evaluation. In the goal setting, each faculty member proposes goals for the next year that are reviewed, by the committee and the Dean, for appropriateness for professional development and appropriateness to departmental, college and university mission. The Department also believes that this is an appropriate time for faculty to propose filling a particular niche or role within the department. As with the goals, the committee and the Dean review such proposals for appropriateness for professional development and appropriateness to departmental, college and university mission. Part-time Faculty In the Computer Science Department part-time faculty are hired as instructors. Thus their annual evaluation is based solely on their instruction. This is evaluated on classroom visit and material such as textbook, syllabus, objectives, notes, slides, other materials including web-based, programming projects, exams, and samples of student work.
January, 2008 As a small department establishing the proper balance between the three traditional areas of faculty responsibility is essential to fulfilling our mission. With the support of the Dean and through the use of the Boyer model of scholarship, our faculty have identified roles that empahsize their strengths while keeping our mission in mind. To further this idea the department supports the philosophy that while it is important for everyone to be effective in each of the traditional areas of teaching, scholarship, and service; it is efficient to allow faculty to develop roles that match their strengths. Of the five current faculty members, two make their contribution to the undergraduate program as their primary emphasis with the scholarship of teaching as their research contirbution, two have chosen a role that emphasizes their research interests with the scholarship of discovery as their focus, while the chair’s time is divided fairly evenly between administration, teaching and scholarship activities also with the scholarship of discovery as his research emphasis. Using this approach allows faculty, during our annual peer-review/program planning, to better understand current and future contributions to the teaching, scholarship and service missions of the department. We believe that through this process we have a technique to ensure that we continue to meet our goals and maintain a balance where all faculty contribute in each area while focusing on their strengths.
January, 2008 The department requires faculty participation in the annual peer-review of teaching and assessment of student learning outcomes. Here each faculty member will conduct a thorough review of one class (or perhaps a pair of sequenced classes. Each faculty member is asked to prepare a complete portfolio for the class (or classes) by preparing a portfolio of the class under consideration. Portfolios include the following information (as taken form the department Policy Manual): - Course materials including: syllabi, web pages, examinations, and supplementary materials - SEOIs - Classroom peer-reviews - Class preparation - Evidence of learning assistance provided to students - Content of courses taught - Demonstrable efforts to improve teaching skills - Efforts at developing innovative teaching techniques and methods - Evidence of currency of knowledge in the subject field - Ability to teach a reasonable variety of courses appropriate to the faculty member’s expertise - Awards of teaching - Course / curriculum development - Instructor or lab manuals and other course support materials - Supervision of internship and independent study - Student participation in research - Student publications and/or participation in conferences - Goals – current and evaluations of prior - MFT results Evaluation of teaching effectiveness is inherently a subjective process that cannot be reduced to simple quantitative measures. Nonetheless, such evaluations must be performed. The list above is an attempt to catagorize what the department perceives to be important components in the evaluation. It is important that faculty members receive periodic feedback on their teaching performance, and that sufficient information on teaching effectiveness is maintained to allow evaluations to be made fairly. It is through annual evaluations like those described that the department was able to areas of concern in our instructional activities (such as that described above in part 5.B. Remediating Difficiencies).
January, 2008 Adequacy and Preparation of Faculty The five current full-time faculty members have extensive experience at both the undergraduate and graduate level from seventeen years to thirty-one years of experience in the profession. All have established extremely positive records of contribution in teaching, scholarship and service. The department also typically hires two or three adjunct, part-time facluty. We have been fortunate to have access to individuals who meet our qualifications and who (as shown by our evaluations) make an important, positive contribution to our teaching mission. Percentage of Tenured, Tenure-Track, Full-time Non-tenured and Part-time All five full-time faculty are tenured. Given the fact that this is a small department this is neither unexpected or inappropirate. The full-time to part-time ratio of five to two or three allows full-time faculty to focus on the major program while qualified part-time faculty focus on our general education mission.
Data provided by Instructional Research and other appropriate offices.
January, 2008 It is interesting, but not surprising, that most of the new research in computer science is kept in digital libraries. The library holdings, including digital subscriptions, are listed in our program review. As can be seen by the list of holdings, access to these journals is electronic. Of most interest to the students and faculty are the digital libraries kept by the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society. In addition to the library holdings, faculty subscriptions, supported by the department, give access to those electronic journals not held by the library. It is the opinion of the department that student/faculty research projects have the necessary access to current research.
January, 2008 Again research in computer science wheter student- or faculty-related is closely tied to access to digital libraries especially those offered by the ACM and the IEEE Computer Society. The Department has access to all necessary libraries either through library subscriptions or through personal faculty subscriptions supported by the department.
January, 2008 As with most technical disciplines, communications, both written and oral, continues to be one of the most difficult areas for our students. With this in mind, the department has developed four required courses that contain a major writing/presentation component and that typically include a reaserch component. CS 325, Technical Writing in Computer Science uses a writing professional to present the aspects of technical writing tailored to the computer science discipline. The senior project capstone courses, CS 480 & 481, require that each team generate professional documents such as software requirements, design, test plan and user manual. Project teams also make formal, required progress reports. CS 489, the Senior Colloquium, requires students to write and present a research paper. In addition, at least nine of the junior/senior level classes require research papers and/or research presentations. In most circumstances, faculty require some of the references to come from non-internet sources in addition to the now ubiqitous on-line research.
January, 2008 Our library representative, a faculty member, regularly solicits our opinion at faculty meetings.
January, 2008 Faculty copies of the most popular jouranls are placed in our student study/project area. While there is no formal check out system, materials seem to get good use without anyone abusing the access.
January, 2008 In general, since the Computer Science Department consists of five full-time faculty members, the department uses a committee-of-the-whole approach to its committees and, being a small department, attempts to seek consensus on most issues. Four committees carry out departmental business. When consensus cannot be achieved, voting is by majority of faculty present (refer to the CS Policy Manual). Department Operations Committee - All full-time faculty members meet weekly to review the general business of the department. This business includes budget allocations, use of resources, university issues, and departmental, college and university policy. Personnel Committee - The composition of the committee varies depending on the type of evaluation under consideration. At some point during the year all faculty will participate in at least one evaluation consideration (Performance Adjsutment and/or Compression Adjustment). Precise composition of the committees for Retention, Promotion, Tenure and Post-tenure evaluation is described by university policy and augmented in the CS Policy Manual and may include external faculty members. Curriculum Committee - All full-time faculty members meet several times annually to consider topics such as peer evaluation of teaching, in-depth review of courses, new courses, curriculum structure, and program assessment. Search Committee - All full-time faculty members (augmented as necessary to meet diversity composition goals) meet when faculty positions become available.
January, 2008 Computer Science faculty members are involved by their participation on university and college committees as part of their service. As a small department, we rotate membership on the Faculty Senate. At this point, all faculty have had an opportunity to serve as senator or alternate senator. All faculty are involved on at least one other university or college level committee and the faculty average almost two university or college committees per person.
January, 2008 Due to the activities described in part B, the department believes that the faculty actively participate in the governance and planning for the university.
January, 2008 The computer science program is teaching intensive as students choosing this course of study must take approximately 104 - 106 credits. With a small department, five regular full-time faculty including the chair and a major committment to the general education program as well as the intense teaching acitvity within the major, it would be impossible to carry out our goals without significant assistance from the university and the college. The university and college have uniformly stepp up to meet this requirement by providing resources to hire adjuncts to cover 14 classes and money to hire lab assistants to provide 1500 hours of lab coverage during our lab intensive general education program. Teaching and scholarship in computer science requires access to state-of-the-art computing technology. Over the last four years with the help of the Office of the Dean and ITS the department has achieved the following improvements with respect to its facilities. - One new and one expanded general instructional lab. - One new special purpose lab meeting the needs of three activities, networking, Linux access, and data mining instruction. - New equipment and software for all instructional labs on a regular basis. - The new Imaging Research Lab. - Improved funding strategies for instructional labs: equipment grants, software grants, student fee, excellent cooperation between the department, the COTS Dean and ITS.
January, 2008 Physical facilities and equipment are generally considered adequate. Threadbare carpet in the main office was replaced last year and air conditioning for offices that are unsable during the summer has been promised before summer 2008.
January, 2008 As the discussion for the support of teaching and scholarship above noted such activities in computer science require access to state-of-the-art computing technology. Over the last four years with the help of the Office of the Dean and ITS the department has achieved the following improvements with respect to its facilities. - One new and one expanded general instructional lab. - One new special purpose lab meeting the needs of three activities, networking, Linux access, and data mining instruction. - New equipment and software for all instructional labs on a regular basis. - The new Imaging Research Lab. - Improved funding strategies for instructional labs: equipment grants, software grants, student fee, excellent cooperation between the department, the COTS Dean and ITS.
January, 2008 Given the computer science discipline, the answer here is the same as that to (A.2) above.
January, 2008 Planning requests for physical resources takes place at regular staff meetings where all faculty and staff have input.
January, 2008 One of the student learning outcomes is: Graduates will be exposed to ethical and societal issues associated with the computing field. Because of this a major portion of the senior colloquium is dedicated to the study of ethics in general and professional codes of ethics in particular. Two codes of ethics have impact on our faculty, staff and students. They are from two professional societies related to computing. The codes can be found at the following URLs. ACM: http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics IEEE: http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/iportals/aboutus/ethics/code.html
January, 2008 The department has no specific policy here.