I. OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES and ASSESSMENT A ... - pace university

I. OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES and ASSESSMENT
A. Background Information
A.1. Degree Title:
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
A.2. Program Modes:
This is a single BS in Computer Science program with day, late afternoon and
evening classes offered on the Pleasantville and New York City campuses.
CS271, "Fundamentals of the UNIX Operating System," a one-credit, required
class, has been presented as an online class since before Fall 2004. (For Fall
2006 CS271 was changed to “Fundamentals of UNIX and C Programming” and
made two credits.)
A.3. Actions to Correct Previous Concerns:
The previous visit reported no concerns.
A.4. Contact Information:
Dr. Susan M. Merritt, Dean
The Ivan G. Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information Systems
Goldstein Academic Center
Pace University
861 Bedford Road
Pleasantville, NY 10570-2799
Telephone: 914-773-3750 E-mail: smerritt@pace.edu
B. Accreditation Summary
B.1.A. Objectives and Outcomes
The Seidenberg School has a long standing commitment to assessment. A
review of the major assessment activities over the past ten years is in
Attachment I-11.
The last accreditation report from the Middle States Commission on Higher
Education singled-out the Seidenberg School for the “numerous things [it has
done] to maintain, assess and validate the quality of its offerings.” For the past
six years a computer science faculty member has been provided a stipend to
serve as Assessment Director. In Summer 2004, as assessment activities
intensified, the School hired a full-time assessment/research analyst.
Seidenberg representatives participate actively in the bimonthly meetings of the
University-wide Assessment Committee and have taken the lead in various
1

initiatives including authoring the frequently asked questions section of the
University’s assessment web site.
The School held its first full faculty Assessment Day on May 3, 2006 and has
scheduled it as an annual event. Activities consist of occasional workshops but
mostly focus on evaluating assessment data. In response to Assessment Day
and other assessment initiatives this past year, the School received high acclaim
from the Assistant Vice President of Planning, Assessment, Research and
Academic Budgeting (Attachment I-12). The most vigorous acclaim was the 15
million dollar endowment to the School from Ivan G. Seidenberg, the CEO of
Verizon, in recognition of the School’s effectiveness in preparing students.
B.1.A1. Provide the institution's mission statement. Include any other
mission statements that are relevant.
Mission of Pace University
Pace University is committed to providing the best possible private education to a
diverse and talented student body at each Pace University location. The
University’s continuous commitment to Opportunitas must be retained,
strengthened and, when necessary, redefined in an uncertain world where many
are excluded from the full benefits of higher education due to economic and
social factors beyond their control. Pace’s sustained emphasis on excellence will
be a constant, which will guide decision-making regarding academic programs
and other endeavors. In a world of increasing interdependence, Pace must
strengthen its international efforts and continue its significant investment in
technology. In addition, the University’s commitment to self-evaluation and civic
engagement must remain as major goals. All of this must be accomplished
during a time of considerable economic change and in the context of
strengthening Pace’s own financial base.
from: Pace University Second Century Strategic Plan 2003-2008 page 1
Mission of the Ivan G. Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information
Systems
The mission of the School is to prepare men and women for meaningful work,
lifelong learning, and responsible participation in a new and dynamic information
age.
from: Pace University Undergraduate Catalog: 2004-2006, page 160
2

B.1.A.2. Describe how your program's educational objectives align with
your institution's mission.
Opportunitas is the one word that describes the mission of Pace University since
its founding one hundred years ago. It refers to delivering an education that
makes professional success accessible to talented men and women. The
university serves a highly diverse population. Attachment I-1 presents statistics
documenting the success of the School’s diversity efforts.
The BS in Computer Science program, accredited by the Computer Science
Accreditation Commission of the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board in
1986, emerged in this context. The dominant objective was and remains
preparing graduates to be industrial professionals who could take the lead issues
related to software and other areas of computer science. To this end, graduates
are supplied with a durable knowledge structure that supports the development
of expertise in contemporary computing environments and the ability to stay
current as the field advances and changes. Graduates are also supplied with the
verbal abilities and teamwork skills required to prosper as well as the know-how
to be an ethical professional enhanced by an awareness of the social, legal,
security and global issues surrounding applied computing.
A professional education in computing, combined with the arts and sciences,
always striving for diversity, is consistent with the University’s mission.
3

B.1.A.3. List the program’s documented measurable educational objectives.
Graduates of the B.S. in Computer Science program will:
1. be equipped for responsible and ethical participation and leadership roles
as computing professionals. This extends to a readiness for lifelong
learning in many forms including graduate study.
2. understand the foundational ideas in computer science and be able to use
this knowledge to guide their thinking in technical problem-solving.
3. be effective in the design and construction of software applications.
4. be able to work effectively on teams. This includes oral and written
communication skills as well as collaborative skills.
5. be informed on social issues that affect and are affected by the application
of computing technology.
B.1.A.4. Explain how the program's educational objectives align with the
needs of its constituencies and include a list of the stakeholders.
Stakeholders in Pace University's BS in CS Program
• current computer science students
• employers hiring new or recent graduates
• alumni/ae
• computer science faculty
• the Seidenberg School’s Advisory Board
The program's chief stakeholders are the computer science students, who need
a program that will deliver readiness to begin and pursue progressive
achievement in professional life. To this end, the objectives are formulated based
on characteristics of a well qualified professional. Student input on the objectives
is garnered by way of their academic advisors and through informal studentfaculty
interaction. For example, students have spoken about developing the skill
set for designing and building software applications (objective 3).
Employers hiring new or recent graduates constitute another dependent
constituency. Dependence resides in the investments that employers make in
those they hire and in their need to entrust employees with critical tasks. The
concrete needs of employers are determined mainly through Advisory Board
meetings and consultations as well as supervisors of student interns. Over the
past five years, collaborative skills and oral and written communication abilities
have assumed central importance (objective 4). Another source of input are
4

faculty members engaged with industrial projects who have evidence of
employment needs.
Program alumni/ae prosper to the extent that they have been provided with
knowledge and abilities beyond entry level skills that will promote professional
ascent. For example, life-long learning and being equipped for responsible and
ethical participation in professional roles is integral to positions of ever increasing
responsibility (objective 1). Assessment taps into the experiences and
recommendations of recent alumni/ae with a survey, the latest of which was
performed in November 2005. The results help to shape the objectives and the
resulting curriculum.
The faculty’s sense of professional accomplishment rests on the ability of the
program to attract motivated students and prepare them for success. For
example, when speaking about program worthiness, the faculty emphasizes a
firm grasp of foundational ideas and the ability to use this knowledge in problemsolving
(objective 2). Faculty input on the objectives comes primarily by way of
their participation in the Curriculum Committee.
Members of the Advisory Board extend themselves to see the School prosper in
many ways. For example, the Advisory Board actively promotes the Annual
Leadership in Service and Technology fund-raiser for scholarships. The stature
of the School reflects upon their own. Beyond this, Advisory Board members are
also employers, and as such they provide the employers’ opinions on the
objectives. For example, informedness on social issues surrounding the
application of computing technology is an objective they endorsed (objective 5).
In the end, all of our stakeholders benefit when the program meets each of the
five objectives and produces well-rounded, well-equipped graduates.
B.1.A.5. For each program educational objective, indicate the following:
• the mechanism(s) used to measure it.
• when it is measured and who is responsible for obtaining the
measurement.
• the extent to which the educational objective is being met.
• all improvements, if any, that have been identified as a result of
the assessment data collected.
• the implementation time-line for any improvements identified.
• where the improvement has been documented.
5

Mechanism 1: The Alumni/ae Survey
Assesses Objectives 1 through 5
To the faculty, the evidence was strong that objectives two, three, and four were
being satisfied. The leadership and lifelong learning parts of objective one were
being satisfied as well.
The chief instrument for assessing success in fulfilling the program's objectives is
the Alumni/ae Survey (Attachment I-2). Its most recent administration was in Fall
2005. The current assessment schedule has it on a three year cycle for
distribution to graduates three to five years out. Responsibility for its
administration rests with the Seidenberg School's Assessment/Research Analyst.
This mechanism measures objectives 1 through 5.
Twelve computer science faculty members, on the Spring 2006 Assessment Day,
studied the summarization of the completed questionnaires (Attachment I-2).
The technique was to perform a content analysis of responses, looking for
indications of objective realizations in the descriptions of the job responsibilities.
For instance, a senior software engineer gave a job description citing "project
management," "requirements gathering," and "system design." From this the
faculty inferred the manifestation of leadership, collaborative skills,
communication skills, an ability to apply ideas of computer science in problemsolving,
and abilities integral to the design and construction of software systems.
Another alumnus mentioned serving as the "interim chairman of an industry
standards committee for systems management interoperability." This was clear
evidence of leadership (and the correlative skills of collaboration and
communication) as well as knowing when technical knowledge applies, where it
applied, and how it applies. The question explicitly asking about graduate school
study or industrial training to keep up with technology showed that virtually
everyone was doing this. Of the alumni/ae who graduated from 1996 to 2003
who responded, 35% had completed or were in a masters degree program and
78% had completed some additional education.
Only implied in the results of the survey was the disposition toward ethical
conduct and a conversance with social issues (objective 5). The faculty was
convinced that the limitation lay in the instrument used for the alumni/ae survey,
not in the absence of these characteristics among our graduates. This is because
evidence shows that the program’s learning outcome seeding these, outcome e
(to acquire an understanding of professional, ethical and social responsibilities),
is being met. Objective 5 is supported by the presence of the international
computing honors society Upsilon Pi Epsilon (UPE) and other honor societies
present on campus including Alpha Chi, the national college honor scholarship
society as well as by continuing programs for alumni/ae.
The next alumni/ae survey, due in 2009, canvassing the classes of 2004 to 2006,
will include an additional item asking alumni/ae to identify the two or three most
6

significant social, ethical, legal or security issues that they have encountered and
about their ability to deal with them. The instrument will also include another item
asking alumni/ae about the international study opportunities of which they availed
themselves. Since 2004, Seidenberg faculty have offered four courses open to all
Seidenberg students that have included travel to either India or to Great Britain
and France. These courses would typically be electives in the general education
part of the curriculum. The University has long offered a multitude of international
opportunities through international field study courses and study abroad
programs.
These new questions addressing objective 5 will be pre-tested in Fall 2007 with a
small scale alumni/ae survey. Hence, relative to the assessment of the program's
educational objectives and their evaluation with this mechanism, the central
improvement is a change in the primary assessment instrument. The new
instrument will be available for display along with the other materials for the
visiting team in the Goldstein Academic Center, room 314.
Mechanism 2: Employment of New Graduates
Assesses Objectives 2, 3, and 4
A successful job search following graduation is evidence of being equipped for
professional participation. The employment data collected by the Cooperative
Education and Career Services Department supply substantiation. For each
graduating class, Cooperative Education and Career Services furnishes the
Seidenberg Assessment/Research Analyst with information on the organizations,
positions, and, when available, the salaries of graduates who obtained full-time
jobs through their auspices (or located jobs without their assistance but were
good enough to respond to an employment inquiry). With respect to the class of
2004 (data for the class of 2005 was incomplete), the highest paid graduate from
the BS in CS program took a job as a programmer/analyst with the SG
Constellation Financial Management Company, LLC, for $85,000. The second
highest paid graduate took a job as a Web Application Developer for CIBC World
Markets for $75,000. Other placements included a programmer/analyst at MBIA,
a programmer/analyst at Nextel Communications, and a software developer at
Epic Systems Corporation. This comes from the table in Attachment I-3.
The job placements shown in Attachment I-3 go back through 2001. They
substantiate that graduating students are judged by employers to have the
abilities, skills, and attitudes needed to add value to their organizations in the
arena of designing and building software (objective 3). Owing to the nature of
software construction, this necessarily carries with it fulfillment in the areas of
objectives 2 and 4. The personal intangibles that make for confidence in a
candidate being interviewed are tied-up with objective 1.
7

The improvement identified by the faculty is, once again, not in the program but
in the assessment. Creating a survey asking whether students are getting the
job offers they had expected or most wanted would be useful.
Mechanism 3: Performance Reviews of Interns in Cooperative Education
Assesses Objectives 2, 3 and 4
The Cooperative Education and Career Services Department queries those
responsible for supervising interns toward the end of each internship assignment.
Supervisors are asked about “academic preparation”, “quality of work”, and other
aspects of work performance.
The Computer Science Department has access to and annually examines the
performance reviews of undergraduates on cooperative education internships.
Although undergraduates are not alumni/ae with three to five years of
professional experience, interns are evaluated on criteria that converge upon the
program's objectives and relate closely to long term professional success.
Moreover, direct behavioral observation by external examiners is always
informative. The following comments, culled from the data in Attachment I-8,
speak of good capabilities and developmental progress.
work attitude:
• "was a great asset to our company; he was a hard
worker and appreciated everything he learned"
• "always asks for more work; very competent and
helpful; a pleasure to work with"
• "great work ethic; always looking to do more"
work quality
• "demonstrates unusually high technical aptitude
for a second year student"
• "programs are well written and tested"
• "overall he presents very good quality; occasional
omission of details has been discussed with the
student, and solid improvement has been observed"
academic preparation
• "demonstrates a good understanding of the W2K
server environment"
8

• "very good with hands-on work, but we have not
evaluated him on his theoretical skills"
• "did not come in with all the skills, but was able
to pick up everything very quickly"
verbal and writing ability
• "clear and concise"
• "programs and documentation were well written"
• "great writing skills"
The Cooperative Education and Career Services Department reports that, "40%
of graduating Pace co-op interns were offered full-time positions from their co-op
employers upon graduation" (http://appserv.pace.edu/execute/page.cfm?doc_id=8008).
Historically, this value is slightly higher for students in the BS in CS. Thus, since
the program's objectives correspond to career readiness, this is a good indicator
that they are being met.
The multiple indicators above enable the conclusion that our program objectives
en masse are being fulfilled.
Metamechanism: Assessment Day
Once a year, at the end of the Spring semester, the Seidenberg School holds an
"Assessment Day" for the faculty hosted by the assessment staff for the purpose
of "closing the loop.” "Closing the loop," consists of workshops and general
discussions:
• interpreting recent assessment data relative to evaluating how well
program objectives and student outcomes are being met
• examining the efficacy of past improvements
• revamping past improvements that are not working as hoped and to plan
new improvements (brainstorm, prioritize, formulate practical strategies)
• considering the adequacy of assessment instruments and analyses
Assessment Day was held on May 3, 2006. The program and the notes
recording the events of the day are in Attachment I-4.
B.1.A.6. List the program's student outcomes.
The program's student outcomes (also referred to as the program's learning
outcomes), specifying what students are expected to know by the time of
graduation, are those promulgated by ABET for computer science programs
9

(coming out of Engineering Criteria 2000: Criteria for Accrediting Programs in
Engineering in the United States by the Engineering Accreditation Commission).
a) An ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics appropriate to
the discipline.
b) An ability to analyze a problem and to identify and define the computing
requirements appropriate to its solution.
c) An ability to design, implement and evaluate a computer-based system,
process, component, or program to meet desired needs.
d) An ability to function effectively on teams to accomplish a common goal.
e) An understanding of professional, ethical and social responsibilities.
f) An ability to communicate effectively with a range of audiences.
g) An ability to analyze the impact of computing on individuals, organizations and
society, including ethical, legal, security and global policy issues.
h) Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, continuing
professional development.
i) An ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools necessary for computing
practices.
j) An understanding of the processes that support the delivery and management
of information systems within a specific application environment.
k) An ability to apply design and development principles in the construction of
software systems of varying complexity.
B.1.A.7. For each outcome, indicate the following:
• the mechanism(s) used to measure it.
• when it is measured and who is responsible for obtaining the
measurement.
• the extent to which the educational outcome is being met.
• all improvements, if any, that have been identified as a result of
the assessment data collected.
• the implementation time-line for any improvements identified.
• where the improvement has been documented.
10

Computer Science
Program
Outcomes
a) An ability to apply
knowledge of
computing and
mathematics
appropriate to the
discipline.
b) An ability to
analyze a problem,
and identify and define
the computing
requirements
appropriate to its
solution.
c) An ability to design,
implement and
evaluate a computerbased
system,
process, component,
or program to meet
desired needs.
d) An ability to
function effectively on
teams to accomplish a
common goal.
e) An understanding
of professional, ethical
and social
responsibilities.
f) An ability to
communicate
effectively with a range
of audiences.
g) An ability to
analyze the impact of
computing on
individuals,
organizations and
society, including
ethical, legal, security
and global issues.
h) Recognition of the
need for, and an ability
to engage in,
continuing professional
development.
i) An ability to use
current techniques,
skills, and tools
necessary for
computing practice.
Table 1.1 shows which outcomes are informed by each of the mechanisms. Input on
each outcome comes from multiple sources.
Course
Displays
Table 1.1 Program Outcomes by Assessment Mechanisms
Student
Opinion
Survey
Summative
Assessment
Course
Opinion
Survey
11
Co-op and
Career
Services’
Survey of
Internship
Employers
NSSE
Advisory
Board
Curriculum
Committee
Academic
Program
Review
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X

Computer Science
Program
Outcomes
j) An ability to apply
mathematical
foundations,
algorithmic principles,
and computer science
theory in the modeling
and design of
computer-based
systems in a way that
demonstrates
comprehension of the
tradeoffs involved in
the design choices.
k) An ability to apply
design and
development principles
in the construction of
software systems of
varying complexity.
Course
Displays
Student
Opinion
Survey
Summative
Assessment
Course
Opinion
Survey
12
Co-op and
Career
Services’
Survey of
Internship
Employers
NSSE
Advisory
Board
Curriculum
Committee
Academic
Program
Review
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X

The nine mechanisms yielding information that is integrated to form assessments
of each outcome are shown and described in the following table, Table 1.2:
Table 1.2 Mechanisms for Assessing Program Outcomes
Mechanism Description Frequency
Course Displays
(on display - G314)
Student Opinion Survey
(Attachment I-5)
Summative Assessment
(Attachment I-6)
Course Opinion Survey
(Attachment I-7)
Co-op and Career
Services' Survey of
Internship Employers
(Attachment I-8)
National Survey of
Student Engagement
(NSSE)
(Attachment I-9)
Advisory Board
(on display - G314)
Curriculum Committee
(on display - G314)
Academic Program
Review
(on display - G314)
Documents class
activities and
evidence of
attainment including
samples of major
assignments, projects,
and exams
Elicits self reports on
achievement of eight
of the program's
learning outcome
Directly assesses
students’ knowledge
and skills on program
outcomes a, c, i, and j
Queries students on
clarity and fulfillment
of course objectives
Evaluates
performance on many
aspects of work
readiness
Directly assesses
what students put into
their education (class
presentations, papers,
teamwork)
Advises on the
abilities and skills
sought by industry to
insure that the
curriculum supports
the outcomes
Oversees the content
of individual courses
and the coherence of
the curriculum relative
to the program
outcomes
A comprehensive
evaluation of CS
programs at Pace led
by an external
reviewer.
As needed to
review specific
courses for
currency and
prospective
update
13
Last
administered
Each course is
reviewed at least
every three years
Annually Summer 2006
Annually
Each semester for
all courses
For each
internship
Yearly for Pace
first year students
and seniors
Advisory Board
meets four times a
year;
CS representative
is present at least
once a year
Monthly
throughout the Fall
and Spring
semesters
Approximately
every five years;
scheduled by the
Provost’s Office
Spring 2006
Summer 2006
Summer 2006
Spring 2006
Last major formal
input from the
Advisory Board
was in November
2005
May 2006
Spring 2001
Responsibility
Curriculum Committee
Office of the Seidenberg
Associate Dean
Curriculum Committee
Seidenberg Assessment/
Research Office
Cooperative Education and
Career Services
Department
Office of Planning,
Assessment, Research, and
Academic Budgeting
(OPARAB)
The Dean of the Seidenberg
School
Operates under the aegis of
the Computer Science
Department
The Dean of the Seidenberg
School

Each mechanism presented in Table 1.2 for assessing program outcomes will
now be discussed individually.
Course Displays
This mechanism provides documentation of class activities and evidence of
attainment. The Curriculum Committee believes there is no surer way to see
what students are doing in a course and how they are performing than through
samples of work, projects, and exams. Products are direct indicators of
achievement.
Course displays assess every outcome because it is the constellation of courses
within the program through which the outcomes are developed. Table 1.3 shows
the outcomes addressed by each course.
Course displays are maintained by individual faculty and presented for review
whenever the Curriculum Committee needs to reconsider the content and the
presentation of a particular course.
Table 1.3 How Student Learning Outcomes Are Fulfilled by Required Courses
(An X Indicates that the Course Contributes to the Outcome's Fulfillment.)
Outcome CS121 CS122 CS232 CS241 CS242 CS271 CS312 CS361 CS371 CS389 CS488
a X X X X X
b X X X X X X
c X X X X X
d X X X
e X X
f X X X
g X X
h X X X X
i X X X X X X X X X
j X X X X X
k X X X X X
Course Titles
CS121 Computer Programming I (4 credits)
CS122 Computer Programming II (4 credits)
CS232 Computer Organization (4 credits)
CS241 Data Structures and Algorithms I (4 credits)
CS242 Data Structures and Algorithms II (4 credits)
CS271 Fundamentals of UNIX and C Programming (2 credits)
CS312 Research Methods in Computers and Society (3 credits)
CS361 Programming Languages and Implementation (4 credits)
CS371 Operating Systems and Architecture (4 credits)
CS389 Software Engineering (4 credits)
CS488 Computer Networks and the Internet (4 credits)
14

Student Opinion Survey
The "Student Opinion Survey," a mechanism created and managed by the
Seidenberg School, is administered annually to students shortly after graduation
(Attachment I-5). Among other things, students are asked about achievement on
program outcomes a through k. While self-reports are only an indirect measure
(i.e. they do not require demonstrations of the ad hoc abilities and skills), "…the
research literature indicates a moderate to strong correspondence between
students' self-reports and more objective measures of learning outcomes." [Linda
C. Strauss and Patrick T. Terenzini; "Assessing Student Performance on EC2000
Criterion 3.a-k"; Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering
Education; June 2005, page 8 -- available on display in the Goldstein Academic
Center, room 314].
The instrument’s stability has afforded before/after insight into whether program
improvements seem to be having the intended effects. The only changes to the
instrument, since it was first administered in 1997, were made in 2005. These
included rewordings of three items (5, 16, and 17) and three new questions
added at the end (46, 47, and 48). The next student opinion survey will include
an additional item asking graduates about the international study opportunities of
which they availed themselves to better assess the global aspect of outcome g.
A major change in the curriculum, to be discussed, was implemented for Fall
2002 when software engineering was made the required capstone. Table 1.4
below contrasts the data from 2002 with the data from 2005 to assess this
change on the outcomes effected. The tabulated percentages have no intrinsic
meaning. The reason for two sets of values is to establish a baseline and show a
change of direction.
Table 1.4 Indirect Measures of Outcomes a through k
from the Student Opinion Surveys (New Graduates) in 2002 and 2005
Outcome Applicable Items
2002
Reported Fulfillment
2005
Reported Fulfillment
a 1, 7, 9 51% 56%
b 3, 4, 5, 8 45% 62%
c 5, 7 37% 50%
d 14 60% 67%
e 15, 16, 17 62% 64%
f 11, 12, 13 67% 50%
g 15, 16, 17 62% 64%
h 2, 18, 19 69% 78%
i 4, 6, 10 49% 64%
j 8, 9 43% 57%
k 5, 6 34% 53%
15

Here is how the statistics reported above were derived. Firstly, items were
mapped onto learning outcomes. For instance, items 1, 7, and 9 apply to
outcome a:
1. Coursework at Pace helped me to understand the fundamental principles of
computing.
7. Coursework at Pace helped me to integrate concepts from various areas of
my discipline to solve computing problems.
9. Coursework at Pace helped me to develop facility with a set of quantitative
techniques for analyzing technical and organizational problems.
For each item respondents select one of six responses on the Likert scale:
strongly agree, agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, disagree,
strongly disagree.
Outcome a is "An ability to apply knowledge of computing and mathematics
appropriate to the discipline."
For any particular year, say 2005, the percentage of graduates who "selected
strongly agree" or "agree" with each applicable item are averaged. This gives a
composite:
item 1: strongly agree = 40.0%
+ agree = 26.7%
66.7%
item 7: strongly agree = 26.7%
+ agree = 26.7%
53.4%
item 9: strongly agree = 26.7%
+ agree = 20.0%
46.7%
Thus (66.7% + 53.4% + 46.7%) / 3 = 55.6% ≈ 56% of the program's 2005
graduates may be said to concur that outcome a was fulfilled. In contrast, this
value for graduates in 2002, the last year before software engineering was
instituted as the required capstone, was 50%. Changes in all the outcomes
conceivably bolstered by CS389 are in the right direction, whatever the causal
pathways. This qualification about the causal pathways is needed because other
significant changes were made to the program with the intent of strengthening it
during the same time interval. The data from the Student Opinion Surveys from
2001 through 2005 are on file in the Goldstein Academic Center, room 314.
16

Summative Assessment
The Summative Assessment is an achievement test for seniors created and
administered by the Curriculum Committee. This test is a direct measure of the
technical program outcomes (a, c, i, and j) but not the "soft" ones. The beta
version was used for the first time in Spring 2006. This beta version is in
Attachment I-6 with the results and a mapping of items to program outcomes. Of
the 80 items, around 35 are either true/false or multiple choice, and around 35
are fill-in-the-blank. Ten require chunks of code to be written, and two require
prose.
Thirty students took the test. Most were given approximately two hours, but those
who arrived late had less.
The beta version was too long. Students rushed, eschewing items requiring
more concentration and problem-solving in favor of the ones that were easier to
grasp and answer (e.g. true/false and multiple choice). Even with this bias,
different students completed different sets of items. Consequentially, the test
could not be scored with the same kind of comprehensiveness, uniformity, and
objectiveness applied to evaluative classroom tests. Items requiring code,
problem-solving, or prose were evaluated on a three-point scale of competence:
“strong,” “fair,” and “lacking.” When numbers were required, these ratings were
treated as 2, 1, and 0 respectively.
Program
Learning
Outcome
a
c
i
j
Table 1.5 Direct Measures of Outcomes a, c, i, and j
from the Summative Assessment of April 2006
Section 2: #4: 70%
#6: 70%
#7: 83%
Indicative Items
and Class Average on Each One
Section 3: #2: 87%
#4: 53%
#5: 67%
rating of 2 rating of 1 rating of 0
Section 1: #4a (coding): 23 2 5
#4b (coding): 15 4 11
Section 4: #3 (coding): 14 1 15
Section 2: #1: 83%
#3: 73%
Section 5: #9: 76%
17
Score
74%
69%
1.23 out of 2
which is
62%
The score on outcome i is somewhat lower than the others. If we knew these
scales were valid and cross-calibrated, this could be the logical place for applying
improvement efforts. However, we know no such thing. The assessment of
77%

outcome i via the Student Opinion Surveys of 2002 and 2005, back in Table 1.4,
shows no relative weakness. Data on the corresponding outcomes from the
Student Opinion Surveys and the Summative Assessment are plotted in Table
1.6 and depicted in Figure 1.1 beneath it.
Table 1.6 Comparing Fulfillment of Program Learning Outcomes a, c, i, and j
as Indicated by Student Opinion Surveys and by the Summative Assessment
Program
Learning
Outcome
Student Opinion Survey
2002
Student Opinion Survey
2005
18
Summative Assessment
April 2006
a 51% 56% 74%
c 37% 50% 69%
i 49% 64% 62%
j 43% 57% 77%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 1.1 Visualization of Table 1.6
Student Opinion
Survey
2002
Student Opinion
Survey
2005
Summative
Assessment
The summative assessment is to be an annual occurrence, each April, managed
by the Computer Science Curriculum Committee. The 2007 test will be an
abridgement of 2006's, consisting of the nine items selected as outcomes'
indicators as well as some experimental items for future year-to-year usage.
Course Opinion Survey
A "Course Opinion Survey" is administered toward the end of each course
(Attachment I-7). Students are asked, using a Likert scale, whether the course
objectives were clear and if the course satisfied these. Routinely, semester
a
c
i
j

averages run between 80% and 85%. Social scientists concur that class
averages on items such as these are meaningful. Our interest in this as an
assessment mechanism resides in the fact that every course has a set of
standard objectives which cumulatively develop the program outcomes (a
through k).
The Seidenberg Assessment Research Office is responsible for administering
and tabulating the results. Reports are distributed to instructors, department
chairpeople, and the Dean.
Cooperative Education (Co-op) and Career Services’ Survey of Internship
Employers
The Cooperative Education and Career Services Department queries those
responsible for supervising interns toward the end of each internship assignment.
Supervisors are asked about “academic preparation”, “quality of work”, and other
aspects of work performance. This mechanism is a direct measure of those skills
needed for success “on the job,” including: all outcomes associated with the
ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools applied in computing practice
(outcome i), those associated with teamwork and effective communication
(outcomes d and f) and the other outcomes indicated as applicable in Table 1.2.
The Computer Science Department has access to and annually examines the
performance reviews of undergraduates on cooperative education internships.
Data, both numerical summarizations and comments are in Attachment I-8.
Employer comments were quoted earlier in this report. One of the statistics is
that academic preparation is rated excellent or good in greater than 95% of the
internships.
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has been administered at
Pace since 2003. Administration, data analysis and the distribution of results are
managed by the Office of Planning, Assessment, Research, and Academic
Budgeting (OPARAB). Participants are first year students and seniors. This tool
assesses oral and written communication experiences, experiences relating to
collaborative work, and the development of professional, ethical and social
responsibilities (outcomes d, e, and f). The NSSE statistics are based on a
University-wide sample of first year students and seniors. The results are
interesting because they are professional-quality measures that supply a contrast
to benchmark institutions, and demonstrate the commitment of the University to
these outcomes.
19

NSSE results "…are a direct indicator of what students put into their education
and an indirect indicator of what they get out of it" ("Introduction and Rationale for
Using NSSE in Accreditation,'" page 1).
The following are results from the Spring 2005 NSSE administration bearing
upon outcome f, “An ability to communicate effectively with a range of
audiences"
In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how
often have you:
1.b. Made a presentation in class?
Very often = 4 Often = 3 Sometimes = 2 Never = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.40 2.23 2.22
Seniors 2.97 2.73 2.83
To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your
knowledge, skills, and personal development in:
11.d. Speaking clearly and effectively?
Very much = 4 Quite a bit = 3 Some = 2 Very little = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.99 2.70 2.69
Seniors 2.99 2.89 2.93
In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how
often have you:
1.d. Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information
from various sources?
Very often = 4 Often = 3 Sometimes = 2 Never = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 3.19 2.78 3.06
Seniors 3.28 2.56 3.34
20

During the current school year, about how many papers or reports have
you written that are:
3.c. 20 or more pages long?
None = 1 Between 1 and 4 = 2 Between 5 and 10 = 3
Between 11 and 20 = 4 More than 20 = 5
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 1.59 1.24 1.24
Seniors 1.89 1.64 1.69
3.d. between 5 and 19 pages long?
None = 1 Between 1 and 4 = 2 Between 5 and 10 = 3
Between 11 and 20 = 4 More than 20 = 5
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.63 2.38 2.36
Seniors 2.86 2.56 2.62
3.e. fewer than pages long?
None = 1 Between 1 and 4 = 2 Between 5 and 10 = 3
Between 11 and 20 = 4 More than 20 = 5
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 3.09 3.02 3.14
Seniors 3.20 2.92 3.10
To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your
knowledge, skills, and personal development in:
11.c. Writing clearly and effectively?
Very much = 4 Quite a bit = 3 Some = 2 Very little = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 3.02 2.95 2.90
Seniors 3.00 3.03 3.05
The following are results bearing loosely on outcome e, “An understanding of
professional, ethical and social responsibilities."
21

During the current school year, about how often have you:
6.d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or
issue?
Very often = 4 Often = 3 Sometimes = 2 Never = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.34 2.54 2.54
Seniors 2.56 2.66 2.65
6.e. Tried to better understand some else's views by imagining how an issue
looks from his or her perspective?
Very often = 4 Often = 3 Sometimes = 2 Never = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.56 2.79 2.76
Seniors 2.69 2.82 2.80
6.f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or
concept?
Very often = 4 Often = 3 Sometimes = 2 Never = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.59 2.80 2.76
Seniors 2.78 2.83 2.83
To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your
knowledge, skills, and personal development in:
11.n. Developing a personal code of values and ethics?
Very much = 4 Quite a bit = 3 Some = 2 Very little = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.66 2.44 2.48
Seniors 2.59 2.47 2.59
The National Study of Student Engagement also presents data bearing upon outcome d,
"An ability to function effectively on teams to accomplish a common goal":
22

In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how
often have you:
1.g. Worked with other students on projects during class?
Very often = 4 Often = 3 Sometimes = 2 Never = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.48 2.52 2.46
Seniors 2.76 2.53 2.59
1.h. Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments?
Very often = 4 Often = 3 Sometimes = 2 Never = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.38 2.17 2.36
Seniors 2.81 2.56 2.83
To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your
knowledge, skills, and personal development in:
11.h. Working effectively with others?
Very much = 4 Quite a bit = 3 Some = 2 Very little = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.91 2.85 2.88
Seniors 3.12 3.02 3.14
Finally, since learning effectively on one's own is considered to be supportive of
an ability to engage in continuing professional development, then NSSE
contributes data bearing upon outcome h:
To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your
knowledge, skills, and personal development in:
11.j. Learning effectively on your own?
Very much = 4 Quite a bit = 3 Some = 2 Very little = 1
Pace University Urban Consortium Doctoral Intensive
First Year 2.87 2.85 2.83
Seniors 3.00 2.96 2.98
The NSSE questionnaire is in Attachment I-9 along with the means and standard
deviations from the 2005 administration on all items for Pace, the Urban
Consortium, and Doctoral Intensive institutions. The overall conclusion from the
23

tables presented above is that Pace is doing as well as or better than its
benchmark schools in writing, speaking, and collaborative skills. Although we
look mildly weaker in the realm of viewing and understanding social issues (items
6.d., 6.e. and 6.f), we are not weaker in supplying experiences tending to
cultivate personal values and a code of ethics.
Advisory Board
The Seidenberg School’s Advisory Board consists of twenty five industrial
practitioners from major corporations including IBM Research, Verizon and
PepsiCo. A full membership roster with organizational affiliations and minutes of
meetings are available on display in the Goldstein Academic Center, room 314.
The Advisory Board meets four times a year. It provides important guidance on
curriculum issues, specifically the abilities and skills sought by industry when
hiring new graduates.
For example, collaborative skills were being strongly advocated by the Advisory
Board since January 2001. As a result of this, and other assessments, software
engineering (CS 389) was enriched with a semester-long team project and was
made a requirement. This enhances the fulfillment of outcome d, “an ability to
function effectively on teams to accomplish a common goal.” Another
improvement motivated by the Advisory Board was to make the Data
Communications course (CS 388) a requirement. This enhances the fulfillment of
outcome i, “an ability to use current techniques, skills and tools necessary for
computing practice.”
Dr. Frances E. Allen; an Advisory Board member from IBM, a former Board
member of CRA, and an IBM and an ACM fellow; is an advocate of fundamental
understandings and constantly warns of fad technology. "Whether or not
theoretical details are used directly, they influence one's thinking." Dr. Allen’s
input has encouraged rigor in the algorithms and the programming languages
courses leading to strengthening of outcome a, “an ability to apply knowledge of
computing and mathematics appropriate to the discipline.” In the same vein, a
different Advisory Board member, Henry Marzullo, emphasizes the soft skills. "I
remember very little of the facts from my college days. Every day, however, I
use the skills I learned in college – to write clearly, to analyze objectively, and to
think creatively." His influence led to a public speaking assignment required of
every student in CS 242, Data Structures and Algorithms II, bolstering the
program’s strength relative to outcome f, “an ability to communicate effectively
with a range of audiences.”
Dean Merritt arranges for faculty to be present at Advisory Board meetings,
encourages Advisory Board members to cooperate with faculty on assessment
projects, and passes information relative to the educational milieu to the
Curriculum Committee and to individual faculty members. This information
24

includes items such as Gartner Group reports, pertinent articles from
professional publications, observations from meetings she attends such as the
Fall 2005 National Science Foundation workshop on the future of computer
science, and insights from her participation as a CAC/ABET Commissioner.
Keeping the curriculum in step with industrial practice will occupy our attention for
as long as technology continues to advance. Advisory Board consultations will
continue to be a primary informational resource.
Curriculum Committee
The CS Curriculum Committee, meeting monthly throughout the Fall and Spring
semesters, integrates assessment inputs from all sources to make
determinations relative to course content. Also, it is a proactive mechanism that
originates improvements rooted in observations of how students learn. The CS
Curriculum Committee takes responsibility for initiatives on the curriculum
including interfacing with the Advisory Board, for monitoring course content and
activities, for constructing and evaluating the summative assessment, and other
inquires, evaluations, and controls directly affecting coursework and students'
experiences. For instance, outcome d was strengthened when the Curriculum
Committee acted on the Advisory Board’s recommendation for an increased
focus on collaborative skills. The Curriculum Committee acted to do this based
not only on the Advisory Board but also with respect to other assessment
sources (e.g. Academic Program Review).
Academic Program Review
The Academic Program Review is an assessment mechanism introduced by the
Provost’s Office in 2000. The term “program review” is slightly misleading
because the review might focus on a single program but it could focus on all
programs within a department. Regardless of its scope, all program reviews
include a self study, one or more external reviewers, a formal report on the
findings by the external reviewer, and a response to this report by faculty (the
Curriculum Committee or a designated subcommittee). When a program review
is scheduled, the responsibility for carrying it forward is with the Dean’s Office.
The latest CS Academic Program Review took place is Spring 2001 and
encompassed the BS in CS as well as the other computer science programs in
the Seidenberg School, including the MS in CS. The two-day on-site visit was
conducted by Dr. Rachelle Heller, a computer science professor from George
Washington University who spent two days on site.
Relative to the BS in CS curriculum, the report advised that students should
receive more experience with professional, GUI development tools and software
25

testing tools. As a result, JBuilder was adopted for the Java programming
classes (CS121 and CS122) and for the data structures and algorithms classes
(CS241 and CS242). We have since switched to Eclipse. The capstone class in
software engineering (CS389) introduces JUnit and Subversion. Another
recommendation was for each student to experience the collaborative analysis,
design, construction, and testing of a piece of software for solving a problem with
no direct solution. This was fulfilled in September 2002 when CS389, the
project-based software engineering seminar, became a requirement of new
matriculants. These recommendations worked together to contribute to the
achievement of outcomes a, b, c, d, h, i, j, and k.
The report is on display in the Goldstein Academic Center, room 314.
Curriculum Improvements Resulting from Assessment
There have been a number of assessment-based changes made to the
curriculum and the student environment since the program's accreditation was
last renewed. The first-order improvements, and most palpable, have been to
the computer science courses required for graduation. Annual changes are
documented in the students' worksheets. Worksheets enumerate the graduation
requirements for that year's matriculants (entering freshman and transfer
students). The Undergraduate Catalog shows these changes as well but with
less chronological granularity because the Catalog is published only every other
year. Table 1.4, below, summarizes these changes.
Table 1.7 Assessment Based Curriculum Improvements
Assessment Action
Change
Effective
Academic Program Review;
Advisory Board
CS389
Software Engineering was changed from an elective to a degree requirement
Fall 2002
Advisory Board; Curriculum CS388
Committee; Student Opinion
Survey
Data Communications was changed from an elective to a degree requirement
CS362
Fall 2002
Advisory Board; Curriculum
Committee
Programming Languages and Implementation II (compiler) was removed as a
requirement to allow for the addition of CS389; course was discontinued; topics
from compiler construction were integrated into CS361
CS231
Fall 2002
Advisory Board; Curriculum
Committee
Computer Organization I (assembler) was removed as a requirement to allow
for the addition of CS388; course was discontinued; PHY109 was made a
requirement
PHY109
Fall 2002
CS Curriculum Committee
Digital Electronics was changed from a possible science electives to a course
requirement to supply coverage of gates, adders, registers, and instruction
decoders that was lost with the removal of CS231
CS488
Fall 2002
Advisory Board Computer Networks and the Internet replaced CS388 as a degree requirement;
CS388 remains available as an elective
Fall 2005
Advisory Board; Course CS271
Opinion Survey; Curriculum UNIX (re-titled: UNIX and C) was changed from a
Fall 2006
Committee
one-credit class to two credits; coverage will include C
26

B.1.A.8. Indicate how your student outcomes map to your program
objectives.
As a matter of terminology, "program learning outcomes" and "student learning
outcomes" refer to the same 11 statements. The key word is outcomes. (These
same statements constitute our program's "student attributes" which are the
focus of B.1.B.)
Table 1.8
How Program Objectives Are Supported by Student Learning Outcomes
(Table extends to the following page.)
Program's Educational Objectives Supporting Learning Outcomes
Be equipped for responsible and
ethical participation and leadership
roles as computing professionals
and
Be equipped for lifelong learning
Understand the foundational ideas in
computer science and be able to use
this knowledge for guidance in
technical problem-solving
Be effective in the design and
construction of software applications
d) An ability to function effectively on teams to
accomplish a common goal
e) An understanding of professional, ethical and social
responsibilities.
f) An ability to communicate effectively with a range of
audiences.
h) Recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage
in, continuing professional development.
a) An ability to apply knowledge of computing and
mathematics appropriate to the discipline.
b) An ability to analyze a problem and to identify and
define the computing requirements appropriate to its
solution.
a) An ability to apply knowledge of computing and
mathematics appropriate to the discipline.
b) An ability to analyze a problem and to identify and
define the computing requirements appropriate to its
solution.
c) An ability to design, implement and evaluate a
computer-based system, process, component, or
program to meet desired needs.
i) An ability to use current techniques, skills, and tools
necessary for computing practices.
j) An ability to apply mathematical foundations,
algorithmic principles, and computer science theory in the
modeling and design of computer-based systems in a wa
that demonstrates comprehension of the tradeoffs
involved in design choices.
27

Program's Educational Objectives Supporting Learning Outcomes
k) An ability to apply design and development
principles in the construction of software systems of
varying complexity.
Be able to work effectively on teams
and
Have oral and written communication
skills
Be informed on social issues that affect
and are affected by the application of
computing technology
d) An ability to function effectively on teams to
accomplish a common goal.
f) An ability to communicate effectively with a range of
audiences.
e) An understanding of professional, ethical and social
responsibilities.
g) An ability to analyze the impact of computing on indivi
organizations and society, including ethical, legal, security
global policy issues.
To bring the mapping of the program's objectives down to the coursework level,
see Table 1.3 showing the specifics on how student learning outcomes are fulfilled
by required courses.
28

B.1.B. Student Attributes
Our student attributes and our program's outcomes are one and the same.
B.1.C. Assessments and Program Improvement
B.1.C.1. Describe your procedure for periodically assessing the extent to
which each of the above objectives is being met by your program. Include:
• Frequency and timing of assessments
• What data are collected (should include information on initial
student placement and subsequent professional development)
• How data are collected
• From whom data are collected (should include students and
computing professionals)
• How assessment results are used and by whom
The "above objectives" (in the item) refer to our program objectives (i.e. the
career and professional accomplishments for which the program strives to
prepare graduates), and the specified points have been addressed in responding
to item B.1.A.5. We respectfully refer this section for narratives that supplement
Table 1.9, below.
Mechanism
Alumni/ae Survey
conducted by the
Seidenberg
Assessment/Research
Analyst
Table 1.9 Mechanisms for Assessing Program Objectives
What data is
collected
descriptions of
current job
responsibilities
and educational
activities since
graduation (or
plans for
additional
education) by
graduates out
for two to five
years
How the
data is
collected
mailed
questionnaire
that may be
answered via
email, fax,
telephone, or
U.S. Mail
29
Frequency
and timing
of data
collection
every three
years; last
administration
was Fall 2005
How the results are
used and by whom
Results are summarized by
the Seidenberg
Assessment/Research
Analyst who forwards them
to the CS Curriculum
Committee and the
Associate Dean. They are
reviewed by the faculty, for
interpretation and
discussion, at an annual
Assessment Day event.

Mechanism
Employment of New
Graduates - the Survey
conducted by the
Cooperative Education and
Career Services
Department
Survey of Internship
Employers conducted by
the Cooperative Education
and Career Services
Department
What data is
collected
statistics for
each graduating
class on the
organizations,
positions, and
(when available)
salaries of the
full-time jobs
located by new
graduates
performance
reviews by
supervisors of
inters on each
intern's work
quality,
academic
preparation,
verbal and
writing ability,
work attitude,
etc
How the
data is
collected
The
Cooperative
Education and
Career Services
Department has
employment
data on hand
for graduates
who located
full-time jobs
through their
auspices and,
for those who
located jobs
independently,
pursues similar
information via
questionnaire.
traditionally a
mailed
questionnaire;
the Cooperative
Education and
Career Services
Department is
in the midst of
migrating to a
Web-based
survey
administration
30
Frequency
and timing
of data
collection
annually,
during the
summer and
fall following a
class's
graduation.
upon the
completion of
each individual
internship
How the results are
used and by whom
Results get sent to the
Seidenberg School's
Assessment/Research
Analyst who forwards them
to the CS Curriculum
Committee, the Associate
Dean, and the Dean. They
are reviewed by the full
faculty, for interpretation
and discussion, at an
annual Assessment Day
event.
Results get sent to the
Seidenberg School's
Assessment/Research
Analyst who forwards them
to the CS Curriculum
Committee, the Associate
Dean, and the Dean. They
are reviewed by the full
faculty, for interpretation
and discussion, at an
annual Assessment Day
event.

B.1.C.2. Attach as an appendix copies of the actual documentation that was
generated by your data collection and assessment process since the last
accreditation visit or for the past three years if this is the first visit. Include
survey instruments, data summaries, analysis results, etc.
Below is a list of the attachments referenced in the narrative for this
section, B.1.
Attachment Number Description Section
Attachment I-1
Diversity in the Seidenberg School of Computer
Science and Information Systems
Alumni/ae Survey
B.1.A.2.
Attachment I-2
Cover Letter
Instrument
Results
B.1.A.5.
Attachment I-3
Full Time Employment Information for New
Graduates 2001-2005
Assessment Day
B.1.A.5.
Attachment I-4
Agenda
Assessment Exercises
Minutes
Student Opinion Survey 2001-2005
Instrument
B.1.A.5.
Attachment I-5
Distribution and Returns Statistics
Data Analyses
Student Comments - 2005
Summative Assessment
B.1.A.7.
Attachment I-6
Instrument – Spring 2006
Results – Spring 2006
Mappings between Items and Outcomes
B.1.A.7.
Attachment I-7
Course Opinion Survey
Instrument
Student Internship Information
B.1.A.7.
Attachment I-8
Organizations, positions, salaries
Employer’s Form for Intern Evaluation
Summary of Evaluations
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
B.1.A.5.
B.1.A.7.
Attachment I-9
Instrument
Results - 2005
B.1.A.7.
Attachment I-10 Evolution of Assessment in the BS in CS B.1.A.
Attachment I-11 Commendation on 2006 Assessment Initiatives B.1.A.
31

B.1.C.3. Describe your use of the results of the program's assessments to
identify program improvements and modifications to program educational
objectives and outcomes.
Include:
• Any major changes within the last five years
• Any significant future program improvement plans based upon
recent assessments
• Any changes in program educational objectives or outcomes
For objectives see section B.1.A.5. For outcomes see section B.1.A.7.
No significant changes to the program are in the offing for the near future.
Improvements are being planned, but all relate to assessment instruments
and procedures. Relative to instruments, the Summative Assessment is
being abbreviated for the sake of validity and usability. The Alumni/ae
Survey is being extended to assess the program objectives related to
social responsibilities and ethical conduct.
32

B.1.D. Documentation
B.1.D1. Describe the documentation that exists for each of the following:
• Measurable program educational objectives
• Expected outcomes
• Assessment process
• Results of assessment
Indicate in your response who has access to each documentation item.
Documentation's Location and Access
Documentary Item Location Access
Program's Educational Objectives Ivan G Seidenberg School of CSIS Website:
>Home
>Academics
>Undergraduate
>Computer Science, BS
Public
Minutes of the CS Curriculum Committee
Expected Outcomes Ivan G Seidenberg School of CSIS Website:
>Home
>Academics
>Undergraduate
>Computer Science, BS
Assessment handout to CS and IS faculty at
the:
Westchester CSIS Faculty Meeting on 9/6/05
and the
New York CSIS Faculty Meeting on 9/8/05
Assessment Day Handout (5/3/06)
Assessment Process Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan for the
School of Computer Science and Information
Systems – 9/27/2004
Results of Assessment Reports from the CSIS Assessment/Research
Analyst
Assessment Day Handouts
Assorted internal documents (e.g. from Co-op
and Career Services, the Office of Planning,
Assessment, Research and Academic
Budgeting, etc.)
33
Faculty,
Associate Dean,
Dean
Public
Faculty,
Associate Dean
Dean
Faculty,
Associate Dean
Dean
Faculty,
Associate Dean,
Dean