May 10 2007 Retreat - Draft
From MWCSWiki
1. We decided on the following course description for the "immediate future" 110:
"Analysis of technology and computing issues, with an emphasis on how software solutions are implemented. Experience with algorithmic development and computer programming concepts, including hands-on work in a laboratory environment."
This will go on the department website, and possibly also serve as catalog text next go around.
2. IDEs: We decided that 220 will use an IDE, and that it will be up to the 230 instructor as to whether an IDE is used or not in that course.
3. We settled on topics for our intro sequence, which Ernie will post to the department website.
4. Policy-wise, we decided that 220 will effectively no longer have a prereq; 220 instructors, however, will carefully warn students at the beginning of the semester to take the proficiency exam if they have any doubts as to whether their programming experience is sufficient. (110 instructors, too, will encourage students who have had previous programming experience to take the exam and consider 220 instead.) Note that this "effective lack of prereq" is true now in spirit only, and will be adopted later in letter (next catalog.)
5. Outcomes assessment for CIS - we might not have a standardized test at all for CIS students, depending on whether we can easily find an appropriate one; instead, we may simply have exit interviews. Clearly, the MFT in CS is inappropriate for CIS students. Karen (or whoever is the outcomes assessment coordinator next year) will talk to Roy Weinstock about whether we do need a standardized test.
6. We determined that from now on, we will get a list of who's graduating to find out who to administrate outcome assessment to (instead of relying on registration for a particular senior-level course.) This information can be obtained from "senior check sheets."
7. We went over the coding standards, attempting to separate the wheat (truly correct programming practices) from the chaff (arbitrary rules that annoy students.) Stephen will make an initial draft of revised coding standards, and also ask for comments from student reps to see what they think.
8. Course scheduling: We tentatively decided on the following schedule for spring 2008, pending Ron's input:
| 103 | ? x 2 (or only one section, and one more section of 104) |
| 104 | Ron |
| 110 | Marsha x 2, Jen x 1, ? x 2 |
| 125 | Ernie |
| 220 | Ernie x 2 |
| 230 | Stephen |
| 305 | Ron |
| 310 | Jen |
| 330 | Karen |
| 350 | Stephen |
| 370 | (Zope) + Ron |
| 401 | Marsha |
| 414 | David |
| FSEM | Karen, Stephen |
Total: 68
| Course load (total credits) based on the above list: | |
|---|---|
| Ron | 10 |
| Stephen | 10 |
| Karen | 6 (Jepson) |
| Jen | 7 (indep study course releases) |
| Marsha | 9 (chair) |
| Ernie | 11 |
| David | 3 |
In order to determine how many sections of various courses we need, however, we will survey students first week of September and ask them how many expect to take 310, 305, and 370 in the spring. We'll then finalize our scheduling shortly after that.
Action items:
Ernie - post new 110 description, and new topic lists for all courses in intro sequence
Karen (or whoever is outcomes assessment coordinator for next year) - talk to Roy Weinstock about whether a standardized test is mandatory for CIS students
Stephen - make initial draft of coding standards, and get feedback from student reps
Somebody (Marsha?) - coordinate surveying students the first week of September as to how many plan on taking 310, 305, and 370 in the spring
Ernie (and all future 220 instructors) - warn 220 students at the beginning of each semester that if they have any doubts about their programming experience, they ought to take the proficiency exam to see if 110 might be more appropriate
Marsha, Jen, and all future 110 instructors - encourage 110 students at the beginning of each semester that if they have had any previous programming experience, the ought to take the proficiency exam to see if 220 might be more appropriate
