appendix viifinal

Appendix VII. Assessment Mechanisms and Improvement

Appendix VII-A. Assessment Plan

1

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

2

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.

3

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

4

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 Frequency Courses Fundamental Fall-even year CS1401 (Intro to CS), CS2401 (Elem. Data Structures/

Algorithms), CS2402 (Data Structures), CS3195 (Jr. Professional)

Systems Spring-odd year CS4375 (Operating Systems), CS3320 (Computer Arch. II), CS3432 (Comp. Arch. I)

Languages Fall-odd year CS3350 (Automata/Computability/Formal Lang), CS3360 (Design/Implementation Prog. Languages)

Software Spring-even year CS3331 (Adv. OO Programming), CS4310 (Soft. Eng.: Requirements Engineering), and CS4311 (Software Eng: Design and Implementation)

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.

5

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 Interpretation Action

69% or below Not acceptable Immediate action needed 70%-74% Marginal Concernfurther analysis is

needed to determine source of potential problem

75%-80% Acceptable Monitor 81%-90% Good No action 91%-100% Excellent No action

6

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

COE EmployerSurvey/

Feedback

Alumni Survey/

Feedback

PHASE 1Program and Curriculum

Review (yearly)

Recommendations

PHASE 3PEO and PO

Review(5 years)

PHASE 2Program and Curriculum

Review (3 years)

Program Improvements

CS Program andCurriculum

Improvements

ProgramCurriculum

Improvements

Course Outcomes

PEOsPOs

Course Content

Delivery and Assessment

Course AssessmentsTeaching Evaluations

OutcomesRevisions

RecommendationsImprovements

OutcomesRevisions

PEOsOutcomesRevisions

RecommendationsPEOs

Outcomes

Advising Survey/

Feedback

Senior Exit Interviews/Feedback

Results

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 sub-committees 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

7

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.

8

Table 3: Contributions of Course Outcomes to Program Outcomes and Objectives

CS Course Numbers

Program Outcomes 1401 2401 2402 3195 3320 3331 3335 3350 3360 3432 4310 4311

1-1 2a,2c, 3a, 3b

1c,1d, 2a-2h, 3b, 3d-3l 1a, 2c 3a 1a 2a-2h

1c,1e, 1f, 2a-2c, 3b

1a-1e, 2c,2i-2m,2q 3a-3c

2a,2d, 2f, 2g 1a

1-2

1c-1e, 2f,2g,2k 2a

2a-2c,3a-3e 3a

1g,1h, 3c, 3d 3a, 3b 1g, 3a 1h

1-3 1g 3a 2a, 3b 2b, 3c-3e 2a

2a-2c, 1b-1d

1a-1e, 3a

2b,2e, 2g,3a, 3b 3c

1a, 1i, 1j, 2b, 2c,2h, 3b-3f

1-4

1a-1d, 1g, 1i-1l, 2a-2n

1a-1e, 2b-2n, 3a

2a-2i, 3a-3m

2a-2c,3a-3e

2b-2f, 3b,3c, 3f 3a-3c

2b, 2d, 2f

2a,2e, 2g, 3a-3c

1a-1e,2a,2d-2g, 2o,2p,2r, 3c

1c, 2d, 2e

1b-1d, 1f, 1k, 1l, 2a-2e,2g, 3c-3i

1-5 1h-1j, 2n

2a,2c, 2j,3a,3b

2b,2e, 2g,2h, 3a-3c, 3e,3g-3i, 3l 3a 3d, 3g 1b 3b-3d 3a

2b, 2n, 2p 1e 1e, 1i

1-6 1c, 1d, 1j 1a, 2n

1a,1b, 1e, 2e

2b,3b-3e 2f 3a 3b 3c 3a

1-7

1a,1b, 1k, 2a-2n

1a-1e, 2a-2n, 3a

1a-1e, 2a-2i, 3a-3m 2d, 3a 3b, 3c 1f, 2h 3b, 3c 3d, 3f 3i 3l

2-1 1c, 2e, 3b 1a, 1b 3e 3g 3j

2-2 1b,3a, 3c-3e 3e 3e 3h 3k

2-3 3a 3a-3m 1c 3b,3c, 3e, 3f

3-1 2o 1h, 2i, 3i

1n, 2h, 3l

3-2 2o 1h, 2i, 3i

1n, 2h, 3l

4-1 1e, 1l 1e 1b, 2i 1m, 2i

4-2 1e 1e, 3b 1b, 2j 1m, 2j

5-1 1d, 2c

5-2 2a 2l 2k

5-3 1l 1a, 1d, 3c

Other 1f 2b, 2d, 2f

1a, 1b, 1d

9

Table 4: Summary of Program Objectives and Their Assessment. Program Objectives Measure

Overarching Objective:

Graduates will be in a profession or graduate program that utilizes their technical expertise.

Alumni Survey: Q2; Q3; and Q17i

Objective 1:

use the theoretical and technical CS knowledge to specify requirements, develop a design, and implement and verify a solution for computing systems of different levels of complexity.

Alumni Survey: Q4; Q7; Q17b, f, g, h, l, n, and o; Q19; Q20

Corporate Survey: c, d, e, k, t, and u

Objective 2: convey technical information in both oral and written formats.

Alumni Survey: Q17d and e; Q21c and d; Q22;

Corporate Survey: n and o

Objective 3: work in teams. Alumni Survey: Q17c; Q21a

Corporate Survey: j

Objective 4: apply a professional code of ethics in the daily practice of their profession.

Alumni Survey: Q17k and o; Q18; Q21b

Corporate Survey: l. m, q

Objective 5: stay current in their profession. Alumni Survey: Q5; Q9; Q17i and m; Q21f

Corporate Survey: p, q, s

Appendix VII-B. Assessment Instruments and Results

Alumni Survey

Employers Survey (see http://216.235.248.162/report/129355/165000/8759)

Senior Exit Interview (by department)

Graduating Senior Survey (by university)

Academic (Advising ) Survey

College of Engineering Computer Science Alumni SurveyFall 2006

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, pleasecontact Denise Carrejo, Ph.D., by email at [email protected] 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?2001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-2006

Other...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


What is your current occupational status?Employed full-timeEmployed part-timeNot employedSelf employed

Other...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Please pick one of the answers below.

Are you currently working in a computer science field (including education)?YesNo

Page 1 of 7


How would you characterize your current position?TechnicalResearchTeachingEntrepreneurialManagement/Administration

Other...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


Where are you currently employed?El Paso-Cuidad Jurez RegionOther TexasSouthwest 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 collegeFull-time graduate student seeking a degreePart-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 scienceMaster's degree in a different engineering disciplineMaster's degree in a discipline outside of engineeringPh.D. in computer sciencePh.D. in a different engineering disciplinePh.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)?YesNo

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 SelfUniversity Courses; Paid By EmployerUniversity Courses; Paid By OtherShort Courses at your Worksite; Paid By SelfShort Courses at your Worksite; Paid By EmployerShort Courses at your Worksite; Paid By Other

Other...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Please mark the corresponding circle - only one per line.

Please indicate your level of involvement in any of the following computing, professional, or communityorganizations:

Member Committee Service OtherIEEE

ACM

UPE

Please write your answer in the space below.

Please list any additional computer science, engineering, professional, or community organizations that werenot listed above and indicate your level of involvement in each.

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


Rate the overall quality of your UTEP education.ExcellentGoodBelow AveragePoorUnsure

Page 3 of 7


Would you recommend UTEP to a friend or relative who is considering going to college?Definitely YesYesNoDefinitely NoUnsure


Rate the overall quality of the computer science program at UTEP.ExcellentGoodBelow AveragePoorUnsure


If you had to do it over again, would you choose to pursue the same major at UTEP?Definitely YesYesNoDefinitely NoUnsure


Please comment on your responses to the questions above regarding the computer science program atUTEP.

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Page 4 of 7


Please rate your agreement with the following statements.The UTEP computer science program:A B C D E

Prepared me to apply mathprinciples

Prepared me to applytechnical computer science

knowledge

Prepared me to work inteams

Fostered my ability writeeffectively

Fostered my ability speakeffectively

Developed my ability toapply theoretical methods

Developed my ability toapply principles of software

engineering

Prepared me to model real-world processes and

objects

Encouraged me to attendgraduate school

Increased my awareness ofcontemporary technical

issues

Increased my awareness ofcontemporary societal

issues

Use computer scienceknowledge to specify

requirements, develop adesign, and implement and

verify a solution forcomputing systems of

different levels ofcomplexity.

Prepared me to keep upwith changes in the field of

computing

Gave me the broadeducation necessary to

understand the impact ofcomputer science solutions

Page 5 of 7

in a global context

Prepared me to serve as aproductive computing

professional in society

Prepared me to serve as anethical computing


Prepared me for my currentposition

Legend for Rank Grid table: Please rate your agreement with the following statements.The UTEP computer science

program:

Columns:A - Strongly

Agree

B - Agree

C - Disagree

D - StronglyDisagree

E - Unsure


Have you designed a system, component, or process to meet specific needs?YesNo


Rate the quality of your preparation for this task as a result of the computer science program.ExcellentGoodBelow AveragePoorUnsureNot Applicable

Page 6 of 7


Rate the computer science program in terms of preparation for your career advancement.

Excellent Good Below Average Poor UnsureLeadership

Addressing ethical dilemas

Public speaking

Technical writing

Pursuit of an advanceddegree

Independent learning


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?


Strengths:

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


Weaknesses:

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


How could the UTEP computer science program be improved?

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

When you click on the submit button, your answers will automatically be saved. You will see a Thank Youmessage from the administrators of this survey, and then you may proceed to the UTEP home page.

Page 7 of 7

Final Results fromThe University of Texas at El Paso

College of Engineering Computer Science Alumni Survey2006-2007

The UTEP College of Engineering Alumni survey for Computer Science alumni was designed toassess 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 bythe Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technologys (ABET) Engineering Criteria 2000. Itemswere reviewed and approved by the UTEP College of Engineering administrators and are similar tothose used in the 2001 administration of this survey. To facilitate communication with alumni in thefuture, the survey also included an item where respondents could choose to add or update theiremail 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 fromUTEP with a baccalaureate degree in computer science between 2001 and 2006. (Alumni withdegrees in other academic programs were invited to complete a separate survey from the College ofEngineering.) Individuals who received graduate degrees from the College of Engineering were notincluded in this survey. Alumni were invited to complete this survey through an invitation sent inmid-December 2006 via email or letter. Those who received an emailed invitation receivedpersonalized Web links to complete the survey. Alumni who received a letter were directed to awebpage 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 Engineeringstaff and the Office of Alumni Relations, email addresses were available for just 57. Due to timeconstraints, alumni without working email addresses received just one mailed invitation to completethe survey. Alumni with working email addresses who had not responded to the first invitation weresent a reminder to complete the survey on December 22, 2006. A final reminder was sent onJanuary 18, 2007.

Page 1 of 19

Report Distribution The College of Engineering Dean receives the overall College results and the results for each of thesix College of Engineering academic programs. Each department chair receives the Collegeresults, 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 theconfidentiality of respondents, it is strongly recommended that all academic leaders use discretion inmaking and distributing copies of the results. Response Rate and Confidence Interval The survey was closed on January 21, 2007 so that final reports of survey results could begenerated. Of the 226 alumni CIERP attempted to contact, 37 responded to the survey, and 4survey invitations were returned as undeliverable. The final response rate for the survey was16.7%. Given the population size of 226 and sample of 37, the survey is estimated to have aconfidence 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 ofthose 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 ofEngineering or the Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning (CIERP). If you haveany 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 computerscience degree?

ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

2001-2002 24.3% 9

2002-2003 21.6% 8

2003-2004 29.7% 11

2004-2005 13.5% 5

2005-2006 8.1% 3

Other 2.7% 11997

Total # of respondents 37. Statistics based on 37 respondents; 0 filtered; 0 skipped.

What is your current occupational status? ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Employed full-time 89.2% 33

Employed part-time 2.7% 1

Not employed 2.7% 1

Self employed 0% 0

Other 5.4% 2Graduate Student

Working on Master's degree with full ride scholarship


Are you currently working in a computer science field (including education)? ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Yes 97.1% 34

No 2.9% 1


Page 3 of 19

How would you characterize your current position? ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Technical 66.7% 24

Research 11.1% 4

Teaching 0% 0

Entrepreneurial 0% 0

Management/Administration 19.4% 7

Other 2.8% 1Project Management


Where are you currently employed? ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

El Paso-Cuidad JurezRegion

58.3% 21

Other Texas 11.1% 4

Southwest U.S. (NM, AZ,CA, CO)

13.9% 5

Other U.S. 16.7% 6

Outside the U.S. (Pleasespecify)

0% 0


What is your current educational status? ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Not currently enrolled incollege

78.4% 29

Full-time graduate studentseeking a degree

8.1% 3

Part-time graduate studentseeking a degree

10.8% 4

Other 2.7% 1Graduated from my Master in Information Technology


Page 4 of 19

Have you pursued any type of professional and/or continuing education (otherthan an advanced degree)?

ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Yes 48.6% 18

No 51.4% 19


Please indicate your level of involvement in any of the following computing, professional, orcommunity organizations:

Member Committee Service Other ResponseTotal

IEEE 42.9%(3)

0%(0)

57.1%(4)

7

ACM 56.2%(9)

6.2%(1)

37.5%(6)

16

UPE 70%(7)

0%(0)

30%(3)

10


Please list any additional computer science, engineering, professional, orcommunity organizations that were not listed above and indicate your level ofinvolvement in each.

ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

4SHPE/MAES

Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE)

REALTOR

N/A


Rate the overall quality of your UTEP education. ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Excellent 37.8% 14

Good 56.8% 21

Below Average 5.4% 2

Poor 0% 0

Unsure 0% 0


Page 6 of 19

Would you recommend UTEP to a friend or relative who is considering going tocollege?

ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Definitely Yes 54.1% 20

Yes 40.5% 15

No 2.7% 1

Definitely No 2.7% 1

Unsure 0% 0


Rate the overall quality of the computer science program at UTEP. ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Excellent 29.7% 11

Good 62.2% 23


Poor 0% 0

Unsure 0% 0


If you had to do it over again, would you choose to pursue the same major atUTEP?

ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Definitely Yes 54.1% 20

Yes 21.6% 8

No 10.8% 4

Definitely No 5.4% 2

Unsure 8.1% 3


Page 8 of 19

Please comment on your responses to the questions above regarding thecomputer science program at UTEP.

ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

16The software engineering program and reserach group was excellent and providedthe necessary tools for me to work in industry

The CS program gave me a strong foundation of knowledge that has allowed meto succeed in every one of my professional endeavors.

There is room for improvement. Now that I look back I feel I could have been moreinvolved in knowing my teachers & fellow students, but I felt the environment wasnot very friend/group oriented. By knowing the teachers & students I would haveprobably 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 therewould be some more involvment from the teachers to get students together, thismight help to bring the program together. Perhaps the peer lead learning is thefirst step.

The professors at UTEP are either amazing or mediocre. Most of the mathprofessors were aweful! The only two math professors I had that were of valuewere Dr. Guthrie and Dr. Duval! Dr. [name deleted] was the worst professor I ever had. He did not teach us. Wecomplained to the chair several times and other people in other departmentscomplained but the math department did not care. I had private tutoring fordiscrete 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 fromhaving a solid understanding of discrete math, a course vital for sucess incomputer science. I will never forgive UTEP's math department for allowing him tocontinue to teach even with so many students complaining.

Great program. Some improvements in the diversity of the courses would makethe program more attractive.

Some (very few) CS instructors are simply outstanding, some are a ok, and othersare 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 ofthose outstanding professors, I would have completely regretted my education atUTEP.

The Computer Science department needs to do more research on what areemployers working on and define from the beginning of the program if the studentis going towards the development/management area of computer science ortowards the research/education part of it. From my experience, 80% of what I amcurrently 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 acouple 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 goodbut I do not think is not worthy of recommendation. I just realize that there areother disciplines that I enjoy as well.

Thank you for a good program, and for helping to make me a competentprogrammer, developer, and engineer.

I was able to experience going to a large University and going to UTEP as well. AtUTEP the computer science department was smaller which made it morepersonalized and a better learning environment. I gained more from going toUTEP in the CS department than going to a larger more prestigious Universitybecause of that.

Quality of the faculty body is really good, however the material being covered in

Page 9 of 19

classes is not as good as them, there is important material/ technology that is notbeing covered (i.e. robotics, media technology, Web/ Grid services technologies)

I wish there would be more diversity in the classes and research. They have beenhiring professors in the past semesters, but most of them are doing research in thesame areas other professors are. I think there are many interesting areas outthere, 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 thatwere 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 wasbeing revamped.

While there were some good instructors in the computer science program, I wouldrate the overall program average or below average. When I was taking the seniorproject class (Software Engineering) I met a few people who knew very little abouttheory or practice of computer science and programming. How were they allowedto make it that far into the degree program? Because some of the classes were tooeasy and passing did not mean a student had to understand the material. I alsoremember a comment during my exit interview with the then chair of the computerscience department: when we were talking about graduate school he mentionedthat 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 teachersleave for different reasons during my stay there. UTEP is a school and should betreated 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 worldtopics, 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 theopportunity to go through.


Page 10 of 19

Please rate your agreement with the following statements.The UTEP computer science program:StronglyAgree

Agree Disagree StronglyDisagree

Unsure ResponseTotal

Prepared me to apply mathprinciples

32.4%(12)

56.8%(21)

2.7%(1)

2.7%(1)

5.4%(2)

37

Prepared me to applytechnical computer science

knowledge

56.8%(21)

37.8%(14)

0%(0)

2.7%(1)

2.7%(1)

37

Prepared me to work in teams 48.6%(18)

43.2%(16)

5.4%(2)

2.7%(1)

0%(0)

37

Fostered my ability writeeffectively

29.7%(11)

45.9%(17)

16.2%(6)

5.4%(2)

2.7%(1)

37

Fostered my ability speakeffectively

24.3%(9)

37.8%(14)

24.3%(9)

8.1%(3)

5.4%(2)

37

Developed my ability to applytheoretical methods

45.9%(17)

37.8%(14)

2.7%(1)

2.7%(1)

10.8%(4)

37

Developed my ability to applyprinciples of software

engineering

56.8%(21)

40.5%(15)

0%(0)

2.7%(1)

0%(0)

37

Prepared me to model real-world processes and objects

45.9%(17)

35.1%(13)

16.2%(6)

2.7%(1)

0%(0)

37

Encouraged me to attendgraduate school

43.2%(16)

32.4%(12)

8.1%(3)

8.1%(3)

8.1%(3)

37

Increased my awareness ofcontemporary technical issues

22.2%(8)

55.6%(20)

19.4%(7)

0%(0)

2.8%(1)

36

Increased my awareness ofcontemporary societal issues

13.5%(5)

37.8%(14)

27%(10)

16.2%(6)

5.4%(2)

37

Use computer scienceknowledge to specify

requirements, develop adesign, and implement and

verify a solution for computingsystems of different levels of

complexity.

62.2%(23)

32.4%(12)

0%(0)

2.7%(1)

2.7%(1)

37

Prepared me to keep up withchanges in the field of

computing

30.6%(11)

50%(18)

13.9%(5)

2.8%(1)

2.8%(1)

36

Gave me the broad educationnecessary to understand theimpact of computer sciencesolutions in a global context

29.7%(11)

51.4%(19)

10.8%(4)

0%(0)

8.1%(3)

37

Prepared me to serve as aproductive computing


48.6%(17)

42.9%(15)

8.6%(3)

0%(0)

0%(0)

35

Page 11 of 19

Prepared me to serve as anethical computing professional

in society

54.1%(20)

35.1%(13)

2.7%(1)

2.7%(1)

5.4%(2)

37

Prepared me for my currentposition

35.1%(13)

43.2%(16)

13.5%(5)

2.7%(1)

5.4%(2)

37


Have you designed a system, component, or process to meet specific needs? ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Yes 91.9% 34

No 8.1% 3


Rate the quality of your preparation for this task as a result of the computerscience program.

ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

Excellent 29.4% 10

Good 61.8% 21


Poor 0% 0

Unsure 0% 0

Not Applicable 0% 0


Rate the computer science program in terms of preparation for your career advancement.Excellent Good Acceptable Poor Unsure/Not

ApplicableResponse

Total

Leadership 29.7%(11)

37.8%(14)

27%(10)

2.7%(1)

2.7%(1)

37

Addressing ethical dilemas 32.4%(12)

40.5%(15)

21.6%(8)

0%(0)

5.4%(2)

37

Public speaking 16.7%(6)

36.1%(13)

36.1%(13)

8.3%(3)

2.8%(1)

36

Technical writing 35.1%(13)

40.5%(15)

18.9%(7)

5.4%(2)

0%(0)

37

Pursuit of an advanceddegree

43.2%(16)

37.8%(14)

8.1%(3)

10.8%(4)

0%(0)

37

Independent learning 45.9%(17)

43.2%(16)

10.8%(4)

0%(0)

0%(0)

37


Page 12 of 19

Please add comments about any of your responses to the items above: ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

5The program was taught for technical purposes, book oriented, not real-worldexperience. 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 datewith the every changing world of technology. It seemed that independent learningis all that I learned how to do well.

none

Not too much emphasis neither on writing technical reports nor giving technicalpresentations

As part of my undergraduate curriculum, I took a public speaking course, whichwas excellent. I cannot remember if this was a required course, or not. If it wasnot, it should be.

N/A.


What were the major strengths and weaknesses of the UTEP computer science program?

Page 13 of 19

Strengths: ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

28The 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 forindependent 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 aftergraduation. 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 requirementswriting.- The amount of time dedicated to the software engineering life cycle and the focuson the planing and design steps.

The UTEP computer science program provides a very strong technical foundationfor students that intend to continue their studies, as well as those students thatintend to enter the professional workforce to do software development. I think thatthe program, as it currently stands, provides an excellent balance between the twopaths.

Some of the "Strengths and Weaknesses" are relative to the Instructor that chanceor luck delivered at the given time a student applied for a class, thus it reallydepended on how good a particular instructor is. Some of the "Strengths and Weaknesses" apply exclusively to the students willpower to take advantage of the tools freely provided by the CS department, whichwere many, and this I do consider a big Strength of the CS Program, for it providedmany 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 studentsthe tools to see patterns in the changing technology, and helps make them flexibleto the rise of new technologies, so that while the department may not explicitlyteach the up and coming trends in the technical world, the skills that are learnedallow 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 learningexperience and I have been able to use in my career.

Diversity of FacultyFunding 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 thebasics and creates a mindset of hunger for knowledge.

Good software engineering course. Good math curriculum. Most other compscience 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


Page 15 of 19

Weaknesses: ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

26The availability of the classes being offered. The labs gradually improved and aretop 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 aswell as non-class related. I felt that it could use more exposure to NetworkAdministration, 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. Webdevelopment, PHP, JSP, XML, AOP)- Lack of emphasis in C/C++. I am not saying that Java is the wrong way to go, butat least one advanced class in C++ would have helped

The environment is bland and ugly when it comes down to the interior of thebuilding, no consistency of flooring and paint.

International professors who did not speak english well. The math departmentwas 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 aspectof 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 programminglanguages, new security policies, ethics and changes that affect the way computerscientist solve problems in the real world.

The program is strong in providing students with the skills necessary to developnew software, but I think that the program could do more to prepare students tohandle the challenges of enhancing legacy software; this might be handled bycovering topics such as refactoring techniques, as well as providing students withthe opportunity to learn how to perform a cost/benefits analysis. I think that theprogram could also do more to provide students with some experience indeveloping 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 widelyused 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 wereallowed to take a graduate course. However since the material was taught at anupper level it was hard to follow along and keep up.

Lack of professional development instruction. For example tutorials on recenttechnologies.

I noticed other universities offer Operating Systems as a requirement course, backthen it was only an elective in the Computer Science Department. I wish I hadtaken this course because my other collegues use and understand more onthreads, scheduling, etc. They told me they learn it in that course. I wish the networks course was more challenging in providing labs and hands-onto networking and hardware.

Page 16 of 19

Degree Plan is not comprehensive enoughNot enough technical practice

I thihk math classes should be revised. There are good math classes that shouldbe, if not required - at least recommended as optional; Not too much diversity ofclasses; 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 coreinfo 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!!


Page 17 of 19

How could the UTEP computer science program be improved? ResponsePercent

ResponseTotal

23More support for the outreach programs or efforts done by the students such asthe 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 ofQuantum)- 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 teachstudents 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 thisbest 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 CScourse. Math professors like [name 1 deleted] and [name 2 deleted] butchered thematerial. 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 [namedeleted]".

Focus more on public speaking and technical writing in early stages of program.

Bring faculty that has more field experience, thus balancing the research-investigation and the practical computer science in the program.

I would like to see the program provide a greater emphasis on the developmentand evaluation of algorithms.

One improvement I would love to see done... is having the UTEP CS Program betruly selective on Instructors and their quality of instructing, not by mere awardsgiven, or by status or title, but by actually attending on one of their classes andacknowledging whether they truly are good instructors or simply, by having anoutside party rate their effectiveness and not some inner comrade that thinks Xinstructor is good or not.

put mor effort into getting undergrad students involved in activities that increasetheir motivation to study deeper into topics for CS. Also, to guide them in ways thatbring them closer to a graduate school degree.

Every class should implement team work. It would help a lot if most classes wouldrequire a semester-long project. Most of my learning came from sitting in front ofthe computer and "creating" something, not from writing with a pencil (tests)... andalthough this would be impossible, I would increase the number of projects anddecrease the number of paper tests. Most classes should require studentpresentations (i.e. PowerPoint) throughout the semester.

Classes being offered more than just one time during the semester and beingoffered 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 realworld.

Raise the standard for classes. (e.g., make some of them harder, don't make anyclasses easy, etc.).Make it easier to find out what kinds of research and project are ongoing. It wouldbe nice if the CS home page had a link to a research and projects page. The bettercolleges make it easy to find out what work is being done by the professors andthe students. UTEP CS should do that as well.

- KEEP GREAT TEACHERS (Ward, Roach, Novick)- Add more real world experience


Page 19 of 19

Senior Exit Interview

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, hands-on 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 student-professor 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.

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.

Fall 2004

Objective Positive Negative Positive Goal Outcome

Theory and Methods 18 0 100% 95% satisfied

Applications and teamwork 14 4 78% 95% not satisfied

Ethics and society 18 0 100% 95% satisfied

Life-long learning 17 1 94% 95% not satisfied

Graduate school 17 1 94% 95% not satisfied

Spring/Summer 2005




Ethics and society 22 5 81% 95% not satisfied



Note: many students would like to answer "applications" and "teamwork" as different questions.

Educational Objectives.

Fall 2005

Objective Positive Negative % Positive % Goal Outcome


Applications 20 1 95% 95% satisfied

Teamwork 17 4 81% 95% not satisfied


Life-long learning 21 0 100% 95% satisfied

Graduate school 21 0 100% 95% satisfied

Spring/Summer 2006

Objective Positive Negative % Positive % Goal Outcome


Applications 31 4 89% 95% not satisfied

Teamwork 34 1 97% 95% 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





Life-long learning 18 0 100% 95% satisfied


Spring/Summer 2004



Applications and teamwork 31 1 97% 95% satisfied




UTEP GRADUATING SENIOR SURVEY 2002-03Results: University and Computer Science Totals

% %1329 71.8 32 69.6

1. When do you plan to graduate? % %

a. Summer 2002 156 12.1 1 3.2b. Fall 2002 502 39.1 15 48.4c. Spring 2003 627 48.8 15 48.4

2. What is your major?

See Table 2.1 for Responses

3. What is your second major, concentration, or specialization?


4. What is your minor?


5. Will you complete a minor in education? % %

a. Yes 206 18.6 0 0.0b. No 814 73.5 28 93.3c. Unsure 87 7.9 2 6.7

n = 433

UTEP Computer Sciencen = 1107 n = 30

RESPONSE RATES

ResponsesTotal 2002-2003 Graduating Seniors

1851

Computer Sciencen = 1285 n = 31

46

UTEP Department of Computer Science

UTEP

ResponsesTotal 2002-2003 Graduating Seniors

UTEP

n = 1326

UTEP

UTEP

n = 757

1


6. What are your plans after graduation?(mark all that apply)1 % %a. Continue working in present job 118 8.9 8 25.0b. Work in an advanced position for current employer 108 8.1 3 9.4c. Work in a job recently obtained 78 5.9 2 6.3d. Look for a job 766 57.6 17 53.1e. Start a business 37 2.8 4 12.5f. Attend graduate school 641 48.2 14 43.8g. Do volunteer work 70 5.3 2 6.3h. Enter military service 29 2.2 0 0.0i. Do not plan to work at this time 15 1.1 0 0.0j. Undecided 40 3.0 0 0.0k. Other:2 65 4.9 0 0.0

7. Do you have any immediate plans to attend graduate orprofessional school? % %a. Yes, plan to re-enroll at UTEP: Which UTEP college?3,4 322 24.6 11 34.4 College of Business Administration 45 14.0 0 0.0 College of Education 104 32.3 0 0.0 College of Engineering 37 11.5 9 81.8 College of Health Sciences 7 2.2 0 0.0 College of Liberal Arts 55 17.1 0 0.0 College of Science 14 4.3 0 0.0 Other 2 0.6 0 0.0 Unsure 7 2.2 0 0.0 No response 35 10.9 1 9.1b. Yes, plan to enroll at another institution: What university?5,6 171 13.1 1 3.1 Texas college or university 53 31.0 1 100.0 NMSU/other New Mexico 9 5.3 0 0.0 Out of state (not New Mexico) 54 31.6 0 0.0 Interstate college (Phoenix, Webster) 2 1.2 0 0.0 Law school 22 12.9 0 0.0 Medical school 7 4.1 0 0.0 Other 9 5.3 0 0.0 Unsure 22 12.9 0 0.0 No response 14 8.2 0 0.0c. Yes, but do not plan to enroll yet 484 37.0 8 25.0d. No, did not apply 168 12.8 9 28.1e. No, applied but was not accepted 2 0.2 0 0.0f. Undecided 161 12.3 3 9.4

1,3,5 Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple responses2,4,6 Individual comments are listed in Appendix A.

n = 32

PLANS FOLLOWING GRADUATION

Computer Science

UTEP Computer Sciencen = 1329

n = 1308 n = 32UTEP

2


8. Have you taken or have you registered to take any of thefollowing exams? (mark all that apply)1a. Graduate Record Exam (GRE) Yes 120 10.0 5 15.6 No 1059 88.0 27 84.4 Unsure 24 2.0 0 0.0b. Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) Yes 7 0.6 0 0.0 No 1062 98.2 24 96.0 Unsure 12 1.1 1 4.0c. Miller's Analogy Test (MAT) Yes 0 0.0 0 0.0 No 1049 99.6 23 95.8 Unsure 4 0.4 1 4.2d. Law School Admission Test (LSAT) Yes 35 3.2 0 0.0 No 1039 95.9 24 100.0 Unsure 9 0.8 0 0.0e. Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) Yes 31 2.9 0 0.0 No 1045 96.8 24 100.0 Unsure 4 0.4 0 0.0

9. If you are obtaining a new job soon, how did you obtain theposition? % %a. UTEP Career Services (resume referral, career fair, on-campus 86 6.5 2 6.3 interview)b. Direct contact using employer directories 47 3.5 0 0.0c. Internet/Web job announcements 41 3.1 3 9.4d. Through a previous internship, co-op, or re

appendix viifinal

Documents

programs outcomes

teams outcomes

design of computer

assessment instruments

present technical information

professional technical

assessment mechanisms

technical questions