Figure: Sample assessment methods to course learning outcomes mapping for ICS 353: Design and Analysis of Algorithms Course
Note that although the total of the assessment should come to 100, it was evaluated out of 79.88 due to various reasons, as can be seen in the notes section. Many of our faculty felt a lot of apprehension towards this way of assessment as it requires keeping the detailed grades of work submitted by students that may reflect more than one course learning outcome. The department pushed its faculty to adopting this model hard. Still some faculty were not able to do it for various reasons. Those faculty were, then, directed to use the method preached by the ABET steering committee in which the lump-summed work is mapped through percentages to course learning outcomes depending on "how much assessment" each such work addresses. An example showing use of this methodology in one of the sections of ICS 353 is shown below.
Figure: Sample "lump-summed" assessment of total student work to course learning outcomes for an other section of ICS 353.
It is obvious that this way is much easier than the aforementioned detailed method. However, the big disadvantage of which is that one can barely call it a good approximation, if any, reflecting students' achievements in each individual course learning outcome. That is why this method was not advocated by the department and was made the exception to be used in case detailed information was not collected by the faculty member.
An additional measure that was taken by the department which was not advocated by the ABET steering committee is that after the averages for each course learning outcome were calculated and normalized to be out of 100, the faculty member will look at his grade scale and will assign the letter grade to each average course learning outcome value that corresponds to the letter grade given to students within this range at the end of the course. The objective of this is to reduce the variation in teaching styles. Therefore, low average course learning outcomes of instructors giving relatively tough exams, projects, etc., who follow a "lenient" curve in assigning letter grades to students will not be misrepresented with others giving "standard" assignments and exams and following the "standard" grading scale. In order to make the calculations simple, we used five letter grade scale, A, B, C, D and F. Therefore, A+ and A were assumed to be A with 4 points, B+ and B were assumed to be B with 3 points, and so on. Below shows an example from ICS 201 in 061.
Figure: Sample computation of the direct measures of course learning outcomes of ICS 201 in 061. The above table shows the grading scale in which the students have been assigned letter grades at the end of the semester and the lower table shows the assignment of letter grades and their corresponding values to the average course learning outcomes.
In multi-section tightly coordinated courses, where exams and assignments are common and with one grading scale, were treated as a big single section course. In multi-section loosely-coordinated courses, letter grades were computed for each section, and then a weighted average based on the number of students in each section is taken to compute the final direct measure value for each course learning outcome. Once these values were computed, the course learning outcomes were mapped to the program learning outcomes in exactly the same manner outlined in Section "Indirect Assessment II". The values of the direct measure of program outcomes for 061 and 062 are shown in the two tables below.
Course outcome direct measure values for core courses in 061
|
PO1
|
PO2
|
PO3
|
PO4
|
PO5
|
PO6
|
ICS 102
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 201
|
2.00
|
1.00
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
1.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 202
|
3.00
|
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
2.00
|
3.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 251
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
|
3.00
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 252
|
1.65
|
2.35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
1.29
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 313
|
3.00
|
2.00
|
2.22
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 334
|
1.33
|
|
|
|
|
3.00
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
0.67
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 351
|
3.00
|
|
|
|
|
3.00
|
|
|
3.00
|
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
|
3.00
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
ICS 353
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
1.77
|
2.00
|
|
2.00
|
1.54
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 381
|
2.00
|
3.00
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 399
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 411
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.00
|
|
|
4.00
|
|
3.00
|
|
4.00
|
|
|
4.00
|
|
|
ICS 413
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 431
|
2.24
|
2.00
|
2.04
|
1.72
|
2.28
|
|
|
|
1.72
|
1.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 432
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
Course outcome direct measure values for core courses in 061 (Cont.)
|
PO7
|
PO8
|
PO9
|
PO10
|
PO11
|
PO12
|
ICS 102
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
ICS 201
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 202
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 251
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 252
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 313
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 334
|
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
|
ICS 351
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
ICS 353
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 381
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 399
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 411
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
3.00
|
4.00
|
ICS 413
|
|
|
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
ICS 431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ICS 432
|
2.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share with your friends: |