Outcome Mapping

This page maps every learning outcome to the assignments and rubric criteria that evidence it. Three rules govern the map:

1. Individual evidence for accreditation. ABET and WIC outcomes must be evidenced at the individual student level. Team-level instruments (partner evaluations, repo checkpoints, team deliverables) appear only as corroboration.
2. Two data points per student, for ABET only. A data point is a rubric criterion or an assignment scored per student. Every ABET outcome below clears this bar inside the capstone alone, most with margin. WIC and Beyond OSU outcomes carry no two-point requirement: they need individual coverage, and one well-placed source satisfies them.
3. Program-level context. ABET assesses the program and accepts representative sampling of student work. Some outcomes also draw data points from other courses; SO4 is partly evidenced by the ethics course (CS 391).

The four skills. The four-skills pass targets critical thinking, AI literacy, leadership, and collaboration, and each maps onto rows below rather than onto a new outcome: critical thinking through the defense Judgment and Technical depth criteria and the RFC options, tradeoff, and recommendation criteria; AI literacy through the defense Ownership and delegation criterion and the RFC Delegation and validation criterion; leadership and collaboration through the defense Role criterion, checked against the sprint-note chaired-decision record, the PR-per-sprint ownership record, and the peer evaluation. The full skill-to-evidence table is §5 of docs/decisions/2026-08-17-four-skills-assessment-design.md in the repository.

ABET Student Outcomes

Outcome	Individual data points (per student, per year)	Team-level corroboration
SO1 Analyze a complex computing problem and apply principles of computing to identify solutions	RFC fall and winter: problem framing criterion + options criterion (4 data points); Defense each term: judgment criterion (3)	Partner evaluation Requirements facet; repo checkpoint decision and risk hygiene
SO2 Design, implement, and evaluate a computing-based solution	RFC fall and winter: recommendation and verification plan criterion (2); Defense each term: ownership-and-delegation criterion (3); Career Retrospective: PR portfolio criterion (1)	Partner evaluation Design and V&V facets; repo checkpoints; Release and Metrics
SO3 Communicate effectively in a variety of professional contexts	RFC fall and winter: writing, revision, and peer feedback criteria (6); Defense each term: communication criterion (3); Career Retrospective: writing criterion (1)	Demos, landing page, handoff, Expo
SO4 Recognize professional responsibilities and make informed judgments based on legal and ethical principles	Ethics course (CS 391, program-level data point); RFC fall and winter: constraints criterion + delegation-and-validation criterion (4); Defense each term: ownership-and-delegation criterion (3); Career Retrospective: responsible practice criterion (1)	Team Charter AI and confidentiality section; blameless conduct in the postmortem
SO5 Function effectively as a member or leader of a team	Peer evaluations, midterm and final, every term (6, the spring final includes the CATME instrument); Defense each term: role accountability criterion (3)	Partner evaluation Teamwork facet; sprint note contribution traceability; charter roles
SO6 Apply computer science theory and software development fundamentals	RFC fall and winter: technical tradeoff criterion (2); Defense each term: technical depth criterion (3)	Repo checkpoint build health; postmortem root cause analysis

Every outcome has at least five individual data points per student per year; the two-point minimum holds even if a defense round or an RFC is missed.

WIC Outcomes (CS 462)

CS 462 is the certified WIC course, so the winter RFC is the certified instance of each outcome and the fall RFC is the rehearsal.

Outcome	Individual data points (per student, per year)	Team-level corroboration
L07 Analyze disciplinary concepts through writing	RFC fall and winter: technical tradeoff analysis criterion (2)	Incident postmortem root cause analysis; sprint note judgment layer
L08 One original, extensive written work that meets disciplinary norms for audience, purpose, and genre	RFC fall and winter: writing criterion (2)	None beyond the RFC
L09 Integrate feedback after critical evaluation during revision	RFC fall and winter: revision criterion (2)	None beyond the RFC

Beyond OSU (CS 463)

Outcome	Where
L10 Apply career development concepts to artifacts from a career-related experience	Resume and Intent: intent-lines criterion (fall). Career and Individual Retrospective: resume, intent-versus-outcome, and peer-review-exchange criteria (spring)