Strategic planning retreat meeting

Event: Monthly retreat for department faculty and staff to discuss how to improve learning and teaching

Time: September 19, 2013

Place: MH 225, SJSU

Attendees: Tom Austin, Rocio Avila, Debra Caires, Robert Chun, Cay Horstmann, Sami Khuri, Suneuy Kim, Melody Moh, Teng Moh, Jon Pearce, Chris Pollett, Jeff Smith, Mark Stamp, David Taylor, Thang Tran, Chris Tseng,

Meeting note taken by: Teng Moh

Summarized and documented for ABET by: Chris Tseng, ABET coordinator

1)      An overview of ABET and what direct and indirect assessment the department has done were presented by Chris Tseng, the department ABET coordinator. This overview educated department faculty and staff on the why and how of ABET process. Direct assessment is done through course evaluation on each related outcome by the course coordinators on a continuous basis. The indirect assessment involves collecting input and comment from alumni, employer, and industrial advisors through various surveys followed with analysis. To close the loop, the department discussed in this meeting the action needed for each issue and what to follow up on the action taken. This is considered an important part of the continuous improvement process for ABET purposes.

2)      The rest of the meeting discussed what action is to be taken for the issues observed in the indirect assessment and that of the course assessment. The finding is summarized in the table below.

3)      Summary of issues and action for learning improvement per ABET requirement

 

ABET Objective/Outcome/ Criteria

subject for improvement

Feedback collected from dept faculty

Action items

Objective #2.: Be contributing to their chosen profession.

Students should join ACM (Indirect assessment via survey collected from employers and alumni)

This objective can be better achieved alternatively by encouraging students to involve in open source development and/or offering technical talks to students in the dept.

Chair will announce these suggestions to graduating seniors and alumni.

General Criterion 2. Program Educational Objectives

Students need more real world experience to meet educational objective (Indirect assessment via survey collected from employers and alumni)

Make internship or a software project course required for degree. This is not easy to accomplish due to the overall unit requirement and the lack of internship for all students interested in taking.

The chair will communicate with employers and industry advisors on the exact meaning of “real world” experience to decide if the change is needed and appropriate.

Program Educational Objective #1: Be making progress in their chosen career or advanced educational program.

More rigorous CS theory curriculum needed (Indirect assessment via survey collected from employers and alumni)

Offer CS155 as an alternative courses to CS154 and make CS154 optional

Pass on course committee on Programming, Algorithm, and Theory to follow up

Program Educational Objective #1: Be making progress in their chosen career or advanced educational program.

Concept of SCRUM and quality assurance need to be included in teaching (Indirect assessment via survey collected from employers and alumni)

CS160 syllabus will add project management, quality assurance, and SCRUM/ Integrating “familiar with a wide range of tools” into syllabus of programming classes

Updated syllabus to be posted to dept. Wiki by the relevant instructors

General Criterion 4. Continuous Improvement

 

The course coordinator for CS146 noted it is hard to partition one question into four outcomes. (Direct assessment from CS146)

Suggest to use Canvas online learning system to assess each assignment with related performance indicator and rubrics/To experiment some  different approach to assess in CS146

Assessment committee to follow up