2. E.S.P Evaluation Statistics Project

3. WEINBERG SENIOR PRODUCTIONS PRODUCED BY Formerly known as Nah Corp

4. PROJECT MANAGER KENT

5. LEAD PROGRAMMER SHULI

6. LEAD TESTING ANAYLST STEVE

7. LEAD SOFTWARE DESIGNER CHRIS

8. THE CLIENT

9. THE USERS

10. INSTRUCTOR AND COURSE EVALUATION – Part 1 DO NOT WRITE ON THIS FORM; RECORD ALL ANSWERS ON ANSWER SHEET IN PENCIL ONLY. 1. What percent of the class meetings did you attend? (a) 0-24(b) 25-49(c) 50-74(d) 75-89(e) 90-100 2. Approximately how many hours did you work outside of class for each hour the class met? (a) ½(b) 1(c) 2(d) 3(e) 3 + 3. What grade do you expect from this course? (a) A(b) B(c) C(d) D(e) E 4. Tutoring provided by the student tutors were helpful. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 5. The computer laboratories for your use were adequate. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 6. In your opinion, the material covered in this course will be useful to you as part of your education in computer science. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 7. The instructor was well prepared for class. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 8. Material was presented in an organized fashion. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 9. The instructor showed interest and enthusiasm in teaching the subject. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 10. The instructor encouraged students to ask question in class. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 11. The instructor was available outside of class. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 12. The text was adequate. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 13. Tests were fair. (a) Strongly Agree (b) Agree (c) Disagree (d) Strongly Disagree (e) not-applicable 14. Overall I would rate this instructor. (a) Exceptional (b) Better than average (c) Average (d) Below average (e) very poor

11. Trigger: End of the Semester Computer Science Department Print off faculty evaluation forms, and attains scantrons Computer Science Department distributes forms and scantrons to faculty Faculty distributes to Students Students complete evaluation forms Students complete and return forms to the designated envelope A student returns envelope of evaluations to Department Secretary Department Secretary gathers all class section envelopes, and assigns each one a code Department Secretary sends all envelopes to Instructional Services Instructional Services scans all forms into computer Instructional Services creates a text file with all evaluation information and a formatted report of each sections information. Instructional Services sends the text file, and formatted report to the Department Secretary Computer Science Department uses text file, to build their own report Computer Science Department makes the available information available in two way: Faculty Member – receives personal data Department Chair / Tenure Board – receives all faculty information Department Chair / Tenure Board uses information to: evaluate un-tenured faculty, book, and the department as a whole Intent: Evaluate the different aspects of the C.S. Department Intent: Get data into a usable form Intent: To manipulate the data into a report that necessary to evaluate all aspect of the C.S. department Data occasionally changes formats, and the reports aren’t adequate. Also, there is no way to build a report that has any history with it. (I.e. has an faculty member improved since he started teaching

12. THE PROBLEM!

13. U1 (Department Secretary) -gather faculty evaluations -assign each section of evaluations a code -send evaluations to instructional services -receive text file Student -brings #2 pencil to class -completes faculty evaluation -returns faculty evaluation to envelope -one students returns to department secretary Computer Science Department -maintain faculty evaluations -print faculty evaluations -obtain scantrons Instructional Services -receive evaluations -generate a text file with all evaluation information -assign new code to each class section -generate formatted report for each section Department Chair/ Tenure Board -access evaluations -evaluate faculty -evaluate books -evaluate department Completed evaluations Blank faculty evaluation Text file with new Code assigned FormattedFormatted report of each Sections evaluation information Compiled evaluations

14. ITEM FILE FORMAT Item file is a ASCII file Each line is 299 characters

15. DESCRIPTION OF RECORD FORMAT File NameTypeLengthStartEnd NCS HeaderReserved40039 Eval NoAlphanumeric74046 NameAlphanumeric204766 SexAlphanumeric167 GradeAlphanumeric26869 BirthdateDate67075 IdentNumeric107685 Spec CodesNumeric68691 Items1 digit/item20092291 ScoreNumeric5292296 CR/LFReserved2297298

16. WHAT WENT WRONG The program did not handle change in item file format New courses could not be added to DB Old courses could not be deleted from DB New instructors could not be added to DB Program did not perform comparative calculations

17. ANALYSIS METHODS Interview With The Client Artifacts

18. THE NEEDS Good GUI Database Reports

20. THE NEEDS Good GUI Database Reports System Extensibility

21. SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS Minimum 200 Mhz Pentium Minimum 2GB disk Windows 2000, Windows NT Min 64 MB RAM MS Access 97 or higher 3 1/2" diskette drive

22. THE END Weinberg Software Productions Thanks you….

23. ANY QUESTIONS???