Course or Program Assessment Summary

Course or Program Assessment Summary

Division: Engineering & Tech Program: cnet Date: 5/11/12 v. 2 2012

Courses in program, or course: ____________COMPUTER AND NETWORK TECHNOLOGY________________________________________

Faculty involved with the assessment and analysis: ____CHRIS AKELIAN________________________________

Course to program outcome mapping document** is completed Yes_____ No______

1 Student Learning Outcome Statements

□

□

The student learning outcomes for CNET program were measured directly starting this semester to reflect more specific program outcome assessment. The division wide SLO’s are more general but can be mapped to the 4 defined program SLO’s and are also included since student survey data was collected

over a 3 year period to help assess the program. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES AFTER 2011

PROGRAM SPECIFIC SLOS SLO

Apply fundamental principles of mathematics, physics and electronics to

computer and networking theory and problem solving SLO1 Develop broad based fundamental technical skill sets that will allow the

technician to adapt to many jobs and changing requirements of industry SLO2 Utilize theory and basic skill sets for operating, maintaining, and

troubleshooting relevant applications and specific technologies needed to support local industries

SLO3 Display traits of hard work, self-motivation, personal integrity, and positive

attitude that will contribute to the success of the project and the company SLO4

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES BEFORE 2011

Order DIVISION WIDE SLOS

S1 Be able to apply theory to solve real world problems

S2 Be able to pass certification and credentials targeted in the course/program S3 Meet proficiency levels required by industry for the specific technology

S4 Relate course specific technologies to understanding the overall program S5 Learn skills relevant to industry demand

S7 Acquire soft skills needed to effectively interact in a technical environment S9 Get employed in the field of study by completing the course/program 2 Assessment Methods Plan

(identify assessment

instruments, scoring rubrics, SLO mapping diagrams)

1. Student Survey of SLOs 2. Test Results

3. Advisory Committee Feedback

Relationship between assessed course level SLOs and Program Level SLOs. Course Course name Program Student Learning Outcomes

1 2 3 4

CNET100

Certification Prep A A A A CNET218 Wireless Networking _{and Administration} A A A A CNET220 Computer Architecture _{and Programming} A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C CNET221 Operation System _Concepts A A A A CNET253 Microcomputer _{Fundamentals for Techs} A A A A CNET254 Server Maint & Admin A A A A CNET255 Network Cabling Cert A A A A CNET256 Fiber Cabling Cert A A A A CNET260 Network Fundamentals A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C CNET261 Router Theory A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C CNET262 LAN Switching A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C CNET263 Wide Area Networking A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C A, B, C

SLO Mapping of Old SLOs to New PROGRAM SPECIFIC SLO

DIVISION WIDE SLOS SLO1 = S1 +S2 SLO2 = S3+S4 SLO3 = S5+S9 SLO4= S7 3 Assessment Administration Plan (date(s), sample size or selection of course sections, scoring procedures, etc.)

1. Review New Student Survey Results for Spring 2012 2. Review old SLOs and data from 2008 through 2011

3. Review the tests and practical results as mapped to the SLO’s for 2012 4. Review Advisory Committee Feedback

4 Assessment Results Summary (summarize Data)

Student Survey Data Results:

AVERAGE OF RESPONSES FOR CNET SLO’s AFTER 2011

The following are CNET program responses taken from CNET 254 spring 2012 AVERAGE OF RESPONSES FOR AS Computer & Networking Tech

Year Semester Responses Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10

2012 SPRING 8 3.12 3.88 3.88 3.62 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AVERAGE OF RESPONSES FOR CA Computer and Network Maint

Year Semester Responses Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10

2012 SPRING 1 2 2 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AVERAGE OF RESPONSES FOR CA Computer Networking Specialist

Year Semester Responses Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10

AVERAGE OF RESPONSES FOR CS Computer Repair

Year Semester Responses Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10

2012 SPRING 2 3 4 3.5 3.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Summary of Responses

Reponses slo1 slo2 slo3 slo4

8 2.08 2.59 2.59 2.41 1 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 1 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 2 0.50 0.67 0.58 0.58 12 3.08 3.75 3.67 3.50 Total % 77.00 93.83 91.75 87.42

AVERAGE OF RESPONSES FOR CNET SLO’s BEFORE 2011 AVERAGE OF RESPONSES FOR AS Computer & Networking Tech

Year Semester Responses S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

2012 SPRING 3 4 4 4 4 4 N/A 3.67 N/A 3.5 N/A 2011 FALL 9 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.22 3.33 N/A 3.22 N/A 2 N/A 2011 SPRING 4 4 4 3.5 3.5 4 N/A 3.5 N/A 3.5 N/A 2010 FALL 18 3.61 3.22 3.17 3.39 3.58 N/A 3.14 N/A 2.64 N/A 2010 SPRING 14 3.71 3.75 3.71 3.71 3.75 N/A 3.75 N/A 3.07 N/A 2009 FALL 27 2.98 2.76 2.57 2.94 3.13 N/A 2.93 N/A 1.44 N/A 2009 SPRING 13 3.08 2.62 2.54 2.92 2.85 N/A 2.58 N/A 1.65 N/A 2008 FALL 8 3.5 3.5 3.56 3.56 3.81 N/A 3.44 N/A 3.12 N/A

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 Averages 3.35 3.16 3.06 3.27 3.41 N/A 3.16 N/A 2.11 Total% 83.70 78.91 76.53 81.71 85.14 N/A 78.95 N/A 52.78 CROSS MAPPING FROM DIVISION WIDE SLOS TO PROGRAM SPECIFIC SLOS

PROGRAM SPECIFIC SLOS

DIVISION WIDE

SLOS Average Total%

SLO1 = S1 +S2 3.25 81.31

SLO2 = S3+S4 3.16 79.12

SLO3 = S5+S9 2.76 68.96

SLO4= S7 3.16 78.95

5 Discussion of Assessment Procedure and Results, and Effectiveness of Previous Improvement Plans

SLO Assessment for survey data, class performance and advisory committee feedback. Summary of survey data

Slo Measure: div-map program average% slo1 81.31 77.00 79.15 slo2 79.12 93.83 86.48 slo3 68.96 91.75 80.36 slo4 78.95 87.42 83.18

SLO1: the student response indicates they generally believe they’re getting to apply theory to solve actual problems. This reflects advisory committee responses that our curriculum has the proper depth of theory, and that the employed student perform much better at learning new concepts than non-schooled.

SLO 2: the student response indicates they’re developing a broad base of technical skills to meet industry requirements. This also coincides with industry feedback which many comments on the quality of the employed students – which indicate our students are exceeding their expectations. The curriculum was upgraded in several areas that industry partners had suggested and has improved the marketability of the students.

SLO3: In this case the division wide slo response was much weaker than the program specific response. The main reason for that is the division response also included actual employment due to the program. Even though the students may believe they’re getting the proper training for industry requirements, that doesn’t always relate to an immediate job opportunity. This is a continuing problem to help students find technical employment in a somewhat rural area; however, the job market has been improving with respect to IT, so these numbers may change in subsequent semesters.

SLO4: the students generally believe they have, or are acquiring, the proper work ethics that will make them successful. Industry partners have also indicated that the students from our program have been some of their best employees.

6 Recommended Changes & Plans for Implementation of Improvements

In general the data indicates that the program outcomes are being met, there may be some improvement in the area of helping students prepare for the workforce and how to approach interviewing and job searching.

. 7 Description or evidence of

dialog among course or program-level faculty about assessment plan and results

Alan Ross agrees that employment training is crucial to student success and future growth of the program.

**Course and program level outcomes are required by ACCJC to be aligned. Each program needs to complete a program map to show the alignment. See examples of completed CPAS and program mapping documents are available at http://academic.cuesta.edu/sloa