|
Computer Information Science
Barry Pasternack, Lead Discipline Faculty
California State University, Fullerton
Summary of Identified
Issues:
· Reaching agreement on the CAN 6 descriptor.
· The dual role served by community college departments
in terms of serving both CIS and computer science students.
· Determining future courses that should be given updated
CAN descriptors.
· The fact that while the majority of students in the
CSU come from community colleges, students intending to go
on to a four-year institution make up fewer than 20% of community
college students.
· Development of distance learning courses in information
systems.
· Setting up a process for regional articulation meetings
between community colleges
Identified Trends/Future
Directions
A number of the four-year universities have moved away from
offering a course such as the proposed CAN 6 course at the
lower division. Instead these universities are offering a
junior level course in information systems available to students
who can demonstrate competency in word processing, spreadsheets,
and data base systems. Students entering such programs are
given a test on basic office skills such as Word, Excel, and
Access. If a student cannot pass the exam he/she can either
sign up for computer based instruction in the particular area
or take a course at a local community college. Some of the
four-year schools are continuing to offer such skills courses,
but they would be counted towards the major. Fortunately,
a number of the four-year institutions that have moved in
this direction have agreed to accept successful completion
of the proposed CAN 6 course as evidence of proficiency in
the Microsoft Word, Excel, and Access
Another trend is the increased use of distance
learning for course delivery and the need for a process to
assess students who may have mastered material outside of
a classroom setting.
Comments from Statewide Meetings and the
General Field
The CIS Discipline Group held five meetings during the 2001/2002
academic year. Meetings held in the bay area as well as in
Fresno were conducted jointly with computer science faculty,
whereas meetings held in Sacramento, Cerritos, and Los Angeles
were conducted by having CIS faculty meet separately as well
as jointly with computer science and business faculty. In
total, over 20 faculty members from the community colleges,
CSU, and UC participated in the discussions.
The focus of the meetings was to reach agreement
on the proposed CAN 6 Descriptor for the lower division introduction
to information systems course required of business majors.
The proposed descriptor (see Appendix
A) was presented at the meetings and, following some editorial
changes, was accepted by the groups in attendance. The descriptor
went to the CAN Board for certification; however the board
had objection to putting items in parentheses and to the use
of the wording "desirable coverage". The descriptor
appearing as Appendix B has
been rewritten to eliminate parentheses and the "desirable
coverage" terminology. Consensus for this revised descriptor
is now being sought.
The group also looked at other possible lower
division courses in information systems for which CAN descriptors
would be worthwhile. The lead discipline faculty member prepared
a matrix of IS courses taught at CSU and UC campuses. This
matrix was discussed at two of the regional meetings as well
as the statewide meeting and there was widespread agreement
that updated CAN descriptors in the area of programming would
be worthwhile. Specifically, there was a desire to develop
updated descriptors in VB.Net, JAVA, and C++. This was further
discussed at the statewide meeting of the Computer Science
and Information Systems Discipline Council meeting held in
Monterey Bay in April 2002, and there was agreement on the
part of chairs of information systems programs that such an
endeavor would be worthwhile.
Another issue discussed at the meetings was
whether there needs to be different programming courses taught
at community colleges for students who are business majors
versus students who wish to study computer science. In the
regional discussions, the faculty seemed to be evenly divided
on this issue. Some faculty felt that one class would work,
however the instructor would have to give different assignments
to the two groups of students. Other faculty members felt
that the emphasis was different enough that two different
courses were warranted. Still undecided was the role a general
programming concepts course would play in an information systems
program.
An issue touched on at all of the meetings
was the differences between CIS and Computer Science. While
the two disciplines do have substantial overlap, there seems
to be a significant enough difference in emphases so that
curriculum would continue to be distinct for the two groups
of students.
The group also discussed the difficulties
community colleges have in terms of the different desires
of students in computer related classes. While the CSU gets
approximately 60% of its students as transfers from community
colleges, university-bound students typically make up less
than 20% of the enrollment at a community college. This is
especially challenging in the area of information systems,
where students at community colleges may only wish to get
specific training in a certain topical area (e.g. databases,
programming, telecommunications) or leave with an AA degree
or certificate. Hence, while community colleges do offer courses
in systems analysis and design, telecommunications, and data
base systems, the focus of these courses seems to be more
hands on and less theoretical than for those courses typically
taught at the four-year universities. As such they do not
appear to be appropriate candidates for the CAN process.
The group also discussed the role distance
learning was playing in course delivery. Class size for distance
learning courses seems to vary between 30 and 50 students
with the success rate being generally around 50%.
Another issue discussed at the meetings was
how community college instructors from different campuses
could share ideas and experiences. All in attendance thought
the IMPAC project was quite worthwhile in this respect.
Note: Faculty from CS and CIS generally met
together at the onset of IMPAC regional and statewide discussions,
then moved to independent discussions as the day progressed.
However, because the teaching responsibilities of many community
college faculty overlap between these two disciplines, we
urge all faculty to review the comments contained in both
CS and CS IMPAC reports. Readers will find that content in
these summaries of regional meetings may be repeated the CIS
Annual Report.
Recommendations
for the Discipline
· Revise the proposed CAN 6 descriptor and resubmit
to the CAN Board.
· Develop CAN descriptors for courses in VB.Net, C++,
and JAVA programming languages.
· Develop a process by which CAN descriptors can be
reviewed on an annual basis.
· Continue to have a forum in which CSU, UC, and community
college faculty can discuss the changing field of information
systems.
· Hold regional articulation meetings among community
college faculty. This will also give faculty a chance to share
ideas and experiences.
Topics for Further
Discussion
· Approval of revised CAN 6 course.
· Determining whether the CAN 6 descriptor can also
be used as the CAN CSCI 2 descriptor.
· Create CAN Descriptors for courses in VB.Net, C++,
and JAVA programming languages.
· Determining a process whereby regular, perhaps annual
review of CAN descriptors can be accomplished.
· Development of a computer competency course within
general education.
· Determining how the success rate of distance learning
courses can be improved.
Recommendations
Forwarded/to be forwarded to:
CAN: Proposed CAN 6 descriptor; in the future, CAN descriptors
for VB.Net, C++, and JAVA
Outreach presentations made by members
of this group:
Organization Date/Place Presenter's Name
Attendees
CSIS Discipline Council Monterey Bay, April 26, 2002 Barry
Pasternack 25
Appendix A
Appendix B
|
