Assessment Data
COSC 1010: Intro to Programming, Allyson Anderson
| COSC 1010: Intro to Programming |
(i.2) |
(i) |
Performance Indicator (i.2): Program in Java, including use of the Java collections and other useful
Java frameworks
Homework 8: The salesReport project allows an employee to enter a simple daily sales report and
prints out the results. The employee must enter his username and password. After verifying the
username and password, the program allows the employee to enter his sales details for the day.
Sales details include the product name, product ID#, price, and quantity sold. An object should be
created for each product and then added to the daily collection of product objects. When the
salesperson is finished entering data, the program calculates the total cash value of the
salesperson's sales for the day and prints out the report.
There were 12 Computer Science majors in the course, 6 of them did not turn in the assignment.
6 students were assessed.
6 students excelled.
COSC 2030: Programming II, Tom Bailey
| COSC 2030: Programming II |
Yearly |
Performance Indicator (i.1): Program in C++, including use of the C++ Standard Library
Problem 3.2 from Exam 3
Give a diagram of the storage structure for a Standard Template Library vector. Explain your
diagram.
Give a diagram of the storage structure for a Standard Template Library list. Explain your
diagram.
The STL list class has a method that inserts a new entry at the front of this list object.
The STL vector class does not have this method. Why not?
25 students were assessed.
8 students excelled.
13 students mastered.
3 students partially mastered.
1 student was below expectations.
Performance Indicator (i.3): Use an IDE to edit, compile, and debug a program
Project 01: Read and process a file of lists of numbers
Task
Write a C++ program that reads lists from a file and reports the name, size, mean if
appropriate, and smallest number if appropriate for each list; and reports the list
name and sum of the list with the largest sum.
The file to be read consists of:
the number of lists in the file,
then
zero or more of:
a list sentinel, a number not equal to any value in this list;
the list name, readable as a C++ STL string;
zero or more list values, readable as C++ doubles;
the list sentinel
26 students were assessed.
19 students excelled.
no students mastered.
7 students partially mastered.
no students were below expectations.
COSC 2300: Discrete Mathematics, John Cowles
| COSC 2300: Discrete Mathematics |
Yearly |
Performance Indicator (a.1): Use descrete mathematics techniques
Quiz 1
converse & contrapositive
negations & DeMorgan's laws
27 students were assessed.
6 students excelled.
20 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
1 student was below expectations.
-------------------------------------------------
Quiz 2
direct proof
24 students were assessed.
14 students excelled.
1 student mastered.
3 students partially mastered.
6 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (a.2): Estimate cardinality of relevant events
in computing applications
Final Question 7
count sets, bags, lists, & sorted lists
24 students were assessed.
6 students excelled.
4 students mastered.
2 students partially mastered.
12 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (a.3): Use mathematical induction to prove
mathematical formulas that arise
in computing applications
Final Question 6
math. induction proof
24 students were assessed.
13 students excelled.
1 student mastered.
9 students partially mastered.
1 student was below expectations.
COSC 3011: Software Design, Kim Buckner
| COSC 3011: Software Design |
Yearly |
Performance Indicator (b.2): Analyze at least two or more proposed solutions
to given problem and select the best solution for the given problem.
This was assessed through the program design project. The teams were required
to plan, design, and program a game. This was in five steps over the majority
of the semester with the sixth, wrap-up due as the final. The programming
assignments are: Program 01, Program 02, Program 03, Program 04, Program 05.
The assignments build upon the previous solutions to culminate in a graphical
game of Izzi.
I have combined the results of the first five steps of the programming project
as I did for the course grade.
63 students were assessed.
38 students Excelled
20 students Mastered
5 students Partially Mastered
0 students Below Expectations
Performance Indicator (c.3): Design the selected solution for a given problem.
This was assessed with the same set of projects as (b.2).
Performance Indicator (k.2): Describe commonly used design patterns.
This was assessed using several of the quizzes which were given covering student
presentations: Visitor Pattern, Factory Pattern, Observer Pattern, Model-View-Controller.
Visitor pattern:
63 students were assessed.
Excelled: 50 students
Mastered: 0 students
Partially Mastered: 1 students
Below Expectations: 12 (most did not take quiz).
Factory pattern:
63 students were assessed.
Excelled: 42 students
Mastered: 0 students
Partially Mastered: 0 students
Below Expectations: 21 (most did not take quiz).
Observer pattern:
63 students were assessed.
Excelled: 51 students
Mastered: 0 students
Partially Mastered: 0 students
Below Expectations: 12 (most did not take quiz).
Model-View-Controller:
63 students were assessed.
Excelled: 50 students
Mastered: 0 students
Partially Mastered: 0 students
Below Expectations: 13 (most did not take quiz).
Performance Indicator (k.3): Design the selected solution for a given problem.
This was assessed with the same set of projects as (b.2) and (c.3).
COSC 3020: Algorithms & Data Structures, Tom Bailey
| COSC 3020: Algorithms & Data Structures |
Every other year, starting 2016-17 |
Performance Indicator (a.4): Calculate the sum of arithmetic series
that arise in computing applications
Final Question 2
Gauss' method for summing arithmetic series
24 students were assessed.
22 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
1 student partially mastered.
1 student was below expectations.
Performance Indicator (a.5): Calculate the sum of geometric series
that arise in computing applications
Problem 3.8 from Exam 3
true / false : $2n \in O(n)$
true / false : $2^c + 4^c + 8^c + \dots + 2^{nc} \in \Theta(2^{n(c+1)})$
true / false : $(\log{n^2}) \in O(n/\log{n})$
true / false : $9^{\log_3(n)} \in \Omega(n(n+1))$
true / false : $1 + 8 + 27 + 64 + \dots + (n/3)^3 ) \in \Theta( n^4 )$
true / false : Merge Sort time is in $(n \log n)$.
true / false : Binary Search time is in $\Omega(log n)$.
31 students were assessed.
12 students excelled.
18 students mastered.
1 students partially mastered.
no students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (a.6) : Use calculus to find the asymptotic limit of functions
Problem 3.5 from Exam 3
Order these Big Oh time complexity classes from smallest (slowest growing) to largest.
* $O( \log(n^n) )$
* $O( (\log(n))\cdot(\log(n^2)) )$
* $O( n \cdot (1 + n) )$
* $O( n + 2 \sqrt{n} )$
* $O( 8^{\log_2{n}} )$
* $O( n! / 2^n )$
* $O( 24 )$
* $O( 3^n )$
31 students were assessed.
11 students excelled.
20 students mastered.
no students partially mastered.
no students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (b.1) : Identify key components and algorithms necessary for a solution
Problem 3.1 from Exam 3
Partition can be used to solve the Selection problem.
What is the expected time complexity of this solution when the required value is the smallest value in the collection?
Explain your answer.
31 students were assessed.
5 students excelled.
11 students mastered.
9 students partially mastered.
6 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (j.2) : Analyze the asymptotic cost of recursive algorithms
Problem 1.3 from Exam 1
Give a recurrence relation for the time required by this C++ function. The size of the problem is the value of jump.
int stumble( int jump )
{
if( jump < 8 )
{
return jump;
}
int step = 3;
while( step * step < jump )
{
++step;
}
int distance = 0;
for( int i=0; i<step; ++i )
{
distance += stumble( step );
}
return distance;
}
33 students were assessed.
2 students excelled.
9 students mastered.
7 students partially mastered.
15 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (j.3): Analyze the asymptotic cost of basic graph algorithms
Lab 07
Graph methods: reverse, topological sort
32 students were assessed.
21 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
5 students partially mastered.
6 student were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (j.4): Describe the impact of techniques such as caching
and dynamic programming on the performance of algorithms
Problem 4.1 from Exam 4
Consider this recursive function:
int
test(int n)
{
const int terms = 19;
int sum = 1;
if (n >= 1)
{
for (int i = 1; i <= terms; ++i)
sum += test(n / (i + 1));
}
return sum;
}
When called with n = 100,000, the function required more than 25 seconds to
make over 900,000,000 recursive calls.
Sketch the pseudo code for a memorization of this function. Explain why this
version is expected to be much faster than the pure recursive version.
Why would memorization be better than dynamic programming for this problem?
18 students were assessed.
2 students excelled.
10 students mastered.
4 students partially mastered.
2 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (j.5): Understand the difference between polynomial
and exponential complexity
Problem 12 from the Final Exam
Define the longest increasing subsequence problem.
Describe a naïve, brute force solution that solves this problem.
What is the time complexity of this solution?
Describe a dynamic programming solution that solves this problem in O(n^2) time.
16 students were assessed.
5 students excelled.
4 students mastered.
4 students partially mastered.
3 students were below expectations.
COSC 3050: Ethics, Kim Buckner
| COSC 3050: Ethics |
Every other year, starting 2016-17 |
Performance Indicator (e.1): Recognize ethical issues involved in a
professional setting.
Case studies/readings/quiz topics: Performance, harassment, professional
responsibility.
24 students were assessed.
24 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (e.2): Describe current issues in security.
Case studies/readings/quiz topic: Security
24 students were assessed.
24 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (e.3): Describe current issues in privacy.
Case studies/readings/quiz topic: Privacy, free speech
24 students were assessed.
24 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (e.4): Respect and honor ethics in writing assignments.
Their final papers were all reasonable, the biggest problems being grammatical errors
especially for our foreign students. Final paper
There were 24 students assessed.
22 students excelled.
2 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (g.1): Understand the impact of computing solutions on
society in a global economic context.
Case studies/readings/quiz: Visas, whistle blowing
24 students were assessed.
24 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (g.2): Describe non-technical computing issues such as
sustainability, entrepreneurship, and outsourcing.
Case studies/readings/quiz: Codes of conduct, social society, visas (same from (g.1))
24 students were assessed.
24 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (h.1): Read and report on papers in the technical literature.
Same as (e.1), (e.2), (e.3), (e.4), (g.1), (g.2) and the final paper. The assessment
of this item is included in the first assessment.
24 students were assessed.
24 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (h.3): Review articles, chapters, or presentations from the
professional literature.
Same as (e.1), (e.2), (e.3), (e.4), (g.1), (g.2) and the final paper. The assessment
of this item is included in the first assessment.
24 students were assessed.
24 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
COSC 4950: Senior Design I, Ruben Gamboa
| COSC 4950: Senior Design I |
Every other year, starting 2017-18 |
This is the first part of the capstone course. Students work in groups ranging from 3 to 5, and they select a project. In this course, the students try to flesh out the project, deciding on the important features and trying to come to terms with project risk. They decide what technology to use, and they may start implementation. They also document their decisions by writing use cases, or other tools as appropriate (e.g., story boards for projects that choose to write games).
Classtime was devoted to group presentations that updated the instructor and the other teams on the status of the project. This is the main tool used for assessment.
Performance Indicator (c.1): Identify constraints on the design problem
35 students were assessed.
27 students excelled.
4 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
4 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (c.2) Establish acceptance criteria for a solution
35 students were assessed.
24 students excelled.
7 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
4 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (k.4) Describe agile methods of software development
35 students were assessed.
35 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
COSC 4955: Senior Design II, Ruben Gamboa
| COSC 4955: Senior Design II |
Every other year, starting 2017-18 |
This is the second part of the capstone course, and students continue to work in the same groups as in COSC 4950, and they finish the implementation of the project they started in that class. Students also prepare for the final presentations, and give a presentation describing their project to a general audience. Finally, students develop their project using source code control through github, and they turn in their final projects by inviting the instructor to the github repository.
Classtime was devoted to group presentations that updated the instructor and the other teams on the status of the project. This is the main tool used for assessment. Where indicated, the project source code or the final presentation is also used for assessment.
(d,4), (d.5), (f.1), (f.2), (f.3), (i.4), (k.1)
Performance Indicator (c.3): Design the selected solution for a given problem
33 students were assessed.
18 students excelled.
3 students mastered.
4 students partially mastered.
8 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (c.4): Implement the designed solution for a given problem
33 students were assessed.
21 students excelled.
4 students mastered.
5 students partially mastered.
3 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (c.5): Evaluate the implemented solution
33 students were assessed.
6 students excelled.
14 students mastered.
7 students partially mastered.
6 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (d.1): Listen to other team members
33 students were assessed.
17 students excelled.
3 students mastered.
10 students partially mastered.
3 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (d.2): Actively discuss team projects,
objectives, or challenges with other team members
33 students were assessed.
30 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
3 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (d.3): Fulfill team duties on time
33 students were assessed.
26 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
7 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (d.4): Share in the work of the team
33 students were assessed.
6 students excelled.
19 students mastered.
8 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (d.5): Research and gather information
33 students were assessed.
8 students excelled.
18 students mastered.
7 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (f.1): Write technical reports
Assessed using the documentation and project description.
33 students were assessed.
8 students excelled.
21 students mastered.
4 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (f.2): Present technical material to technical peers
33 students were assessed.
33 students excelled.
0 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (f.3): Present technical material to non-technical visitors
Assessed using the final presentation.
33 students were assessed.
25 students excelled.
8 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (h.2): Participate in professional activities
of a program
Assessed using ACM Student Chapter meetings, as well as references to
trade books and conferences during class discussion.
33 students were assessed.
18 students excelled.
8 students mastered.
7 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (i.4): Use source code control to manage different versions
of a program
Assessed using the final project submission.
33 students were assessed.
21 students excelled.
12 students mastered.
0 students partially mastered.
0 students were below expectations.
Performance Indicator (k.1): Design the overall architecture of a software system
Assessed using the final project submission and class status reports.
33 students were assessed.
17 students excelled.
9 students mastered.
3 students partially mastered.
4 students were below expectations.