Resultados de Encuestas

411 7/8/13 96 OnDemand Mar 13 -- 4 MSISM GLEG/ LEG 523 7/9/13 91 SANS 2012 Orlando, FL Mar 12 W

2. Distribution of scores reflecting STI’s 80% pass criterion and performance on items aligned with STI learning outcomes.

Please see table above. Three scores out of 12 exams taken received below 80 (range was between 73-76)

Out of 3 students who took an OnDemand course 67% scored above 80. Average score of exams for students who took the course through OnDemand is 88.3. Two students took a course through the vLive platform and both scored above 80. Out of 12 exams taken, 41.6% of students took the SANS course through a distributed learning modality during Q3. Reviewers should respond if they notice any additional achievement gaps.

4. Analysis and reflection on content areas, including those aligned with program outcomes, for which two or more students receive 3 stars or less.

If you are a reviewer with stars noted below, please reply to all with your thoughts. n = Number of students who received 3 stars or less on an exam objective

% = Number of students who received 3 stars or less divided by total exams taken for that quarter

GCIH (SEC 504: Hacker Techniques, Exploits & Incident Handling) – 2 Exam Scores Reviewed - Reviewer E

Incident Handling Phase 2

Identification 2

(100%)

Virtual Machine Attacks

2 (100%)

GCIA (SEC 503: Intrusion Detection In-Depth) – 2 Exam Scores Reviewed - Reviewer J

Network Traffic Analysis 2 (100%) Snort GUIs & Sensor 2

Q3 2013 GIAC Gold Rubric Score (Summary)

Prepared by Matthew Scott – Director of Institutional Effectiveness December 16, 2013

The purpose of this report is to document the progress students are making towards achieving program learning outcomes and provide early indicators of outcomes trends that do not align with expectations.

1. Number of Gold papers completed by students and overall scores achieved 13 Gold papers published during Q3. Performance information below.

ID Program Cert/Course Date Score

1 MSISE GSEC/ SEC 401 9/17/13 82.86

2 MSISE GSEC/ SEC 401 9/17/13 82.86

3 MSISE GCIA/ SEC 503 9/17/13 90

4 MSISE GCIH/ SEC 504 9/9/13 80

5 MSISE GCIA/ SEC 503 9/6/13 90

6 MSISE GCIA/ SEC 503 8/20/13 82.86

7 MSISE GCIA/ SEC 503 8/19/13 94.29

8 MSISE GSEC/ SEC 401 8/19/13 87.14

9 MSISE GSEC/ SEC 401 8/8/13 85.71

10 MSISE GSEC/ SEC 401 7/17/13 88.57

ID Program Cert/Course Date Score

1 MSISM GSLC/ MGT 512 9/23/13 88.57

2 MSISM GLEG/ LEG 523 8/6/13 94.29

3 MSISM GCIA/ SEC 503 9/19/13 92.86

2. Analysis and reflection on distribution of scores on rubric categories related to writing ability For management focused papers – 2 scores analyzed

Rubric category Average

Content and Structure 9

Language 9

Referencing 9.5

Knowledge and Wisdom 8.5

For technical focused papers – 11 scores analyzed

Rubric category Average

Language 8.73

Referencing 8.91

Knowledge and Wisdom 8.82

A score of 8-9 on the rubric categories analyzed have the following significance: Content and Structure: Paper has good content and/or structure.

Language: Spelling is clean and good use of language.

Referencing: References are used where necessary and refer to original work.

Knowledge and Wisdom: Domain knowledge could only be found by hours of Internet searching as well as using books, periodicals and other sources, and represents an increase in the body of searchable knowledge available on the Internet after it is posted. 3. Analysis and reflection on distribution of rubric score categories related to general program learning outcome 5: Identify emerging information security issues, utilize knowledge of information security theory to investigate causes and solutions, and delineate strategies guided by evolving information security research and theory.

For management focused papers – 2 scores analyzed

Rubric category Average

Actionable Items 9.5

Framework-driven 9

approach

For technical focused papers – 11 scores analyzed

Rubric category Average

Application of Technology

8.36 State of the art 8.27

A score of 8-9 on the rubric categories analyzed have the following significance: Actionable Items: Paper provides a comprehensive set of actionable tips for planning, organizing, staffing, leading or directing, and controlling a group or organization.

Framework-driven Approach: A framework is a tiered approach that shows how individual actions fit together when you raise the level of abstraction. In conceptual modeling, we called that going from a model to a meta-model, or from a meta-model to a meta-meta-model. Consider a scenario where you may review log files, check IDS alerts, speak to users, look at help desk records, review netflows, check SIEMs, etc. All of these actions are separate operations, but

when you take a step back and adopt a higher level of abstraction, it becomes clear that they are all are part of the identification phase. Making such relationships clear and having them logically interact with each other and apply some prescriptive guidelines is what I consider to be a

framework.

A score of 8-9 indicates the paper provides a framework that is well-­‐‑aligned with the subject matter.

Application of technology: Paper provides guidance on how to apply technology and discusses benefits from using the chosen technology in specific terms.

State of the art: The technology discussed in the paper is state-­‐‑of-­‐‑the-­‐‑art.

4. Note to committee regarding further assessment of general program learning outcome 4: Effectively communicate information security assessments, plans and actions for technical and nontechnical audiences/stakeholders.

In November STI established a work agreement with xx, a third party independent organization that provides writing assistance to students pursuing technical degrees. STI contracted the organization to conduct a review of published GIAC gold papers from STI students during 2013. The sample chosen was the first paper of a student’s program of study – typically related to the GSEC or GSLC certification exams, in addition to their leadership admissions essay. xx compared writing samples to identify whether a student’s writing improved, remained static or regressed. J and T are currently reviewing the analysis completed and will make