Exit Survey Results – Summary
The following data summarizes the exit survey results for the academic year 2008-2009. Surveys have been performed since 2001. However, the survey was modified in 2006 into this form.
1. Graduation Date and Option
| Interviewee % by Option 2008-9 | ||||
| Sc | SS | Dig | Bio | IT |
| 41% | 30% | 29% | 0% | 0% |
Evaluation:
These data show a change in the enrollment trends for the department. In years past, Science and Software Systems were in the majority with Digital third and Bioinformatics and Information Technology growing. This past year's data, while somewhat anecdotal, do indicate a change in enrollment.
2. Advisement
|
Advisement (4=excellent, 3=good, 2=average, 1=poor) |
|||||||||
|
2004-5 |
2005-6 |
||||||||
|
Excellent |
Good |
Average |
Poor |
Overall |
Excellent |
Good |
Average |
Poor |
Overall |
|
7 |
13 |
11 |
1 |
2.8 |
22 |
24 |
9 |
0 |
3.24 |
Average Advisement rating by students (1-5, with 5 highest) was 4.9
Evaluation:
We are very pleased with advising in the department, and we feel that these data support that conclusion.
3. Were you able to take the courses you needed, when you needed?
91% of those surveyed said yes. Of the 9% who had difficulties, 5 indicated it was with an English or Ethics class, and 4 indicated there were conflicts between CS offerings and other department required offerings.
Evaluation:
Generally students are
able to take courses when they to want take them. While not reflected in the data,
even those students that had to occasionally shuffle they schedules were not
delayed in graduation.
4. Do you see yourself staying in Computer Science?
85% indicated that they planned to stay in computer science.
Evaluation:
Obviously, these data
would say that most graduates plan to pursue a career in computer science. The
data from the alumni surveys would indicate that this has remained true,
although, as one would expect there has been some migration away from computer
science.
PROGRAM LEARNING OBJECTIVES Self rating 1 (low), 5 (high)
A. Proficient in programming in at least two programming languages
Average = 4.6
B. CORE CURRICULUM MASTERY
i. Principles and practices for problem/solution analysis and design
ii. Data Structures and Algorithms
Average = 4.0
iii. Computer Architecture and Organization
Average = 3.4
iv. Programming Languages
Average = 4.3
v. Operating Systems
Average = 3.8
vi. Theory of Computing
Average = 3.3
vii. Software Engineering
Average = 4.0
Evaluation:
In general, students
self-rated their proficiency in most areas at or about 4.0. The weakest ranking
was in the area of computer theory, which is as expected since the only upper division class in computer theory is not required. Thus, overall in
terms of the core mastery goals of the programs, students rated themselves as
relatively (4 out of 5) proficient.
ix. Possess an understanding of the practices and dynamics required to develop software whether it be a single program or a major software product developed in a team environment?
x. Proficient in the use of mathematical tools including discrete mathematics, (business – for IT options only) calculus, elementary statistics, and probability?
Average = 4.1
xi. Understand the basics of science, and specifically the scientific method?
Average = 4.4
xii. Have an understanding and appreciation for the arts, humanities, and social sciences, and their importance in today’s society?
xiii. Possess sufficient fundamental knowledge of computer science to be a life-long learner?
xiv. Understand the social and ethical issues which face computer scientists, and thus be able to contribute to society in a positive and productive manner?
xv. Able to communicate information effectively both in writing and orally?
Evaluation:
Again, in these more
general areas, students rated themselves as proficient. The lowest ranking (but
still acceptable) was in software practices. This correlates with the
relatively low ranking for software engineering in the preceding section of the
evaluation summary.