Assessment of Student Learning - Minnesota State University Moorhead

The summary table below reports assessment statistics from the spring, 2001 and fall, 2002 semesters (see Table 1). A total of 16 students were assessed by the faculty members teaching the senior seminar in those semesters.[1] Also reported for comparison purposes are the results from previous rounds of assessment. As the data are ordinal not interval, means and standard deviations are meaningless. The median for each measure (each is a 10-point scale with 5 defined as “average”) is presented.

Item	Spring, 2001-Fall, 2002	Spring, 2000 Fall, 2000	Fall, 1998- Spring, 1999	Fall, 1997- Spring, 1998

Student Effort

Student’s effort/commitment to learning	6.0	7.0	8.0	8.0

Ability to Read Analytically

Ability to identify relevant library materials	7.0	8.0	8.0	8.0

Ability to identify and understand theoretical concepts	6.5	8.0	8.0	8.0

Ability to understand the logic of causal and theoretical arguments	6.5	7.5	8.0	8.0

Ability to understand research design and measurement issues	6.0	8.0	7.0	7.0

Ability to understand research conclusions and their implications	6.0	7.5	6.0	7.0

Ability to Think Critically

Ability to identify and evaluate assumptions in the literature	6.5	7.5	8.0	8.0

Ability to integrate a literature	5.5	6.5	7.0	8.0

Ability to evaluate conclusions in light of research design & evidence	5.5	7.0	6.5	7.0

Ability to identify unresolved questions in the literature	5.5	7.5	6.0	7.0

Ability to Organize Ideas

Ability to define a clear, precise question	6.0	7.5	7.5	9.0

Ability to relate a question to current knowledge	6.0	7.5	7.0	9.0

Ability to understand relationships between concepts	6.0	7.5	8.0	8.0

Ability to develop a clear theoretical argument	6.0	8.0	6.0	8.0

Ability to design a research project to address a question	6.0	7.5	7.0	8.0

Ability to define and gather relevant evidence	7.5	7.5	8.0	8.0

Ability to draw conclusions in light of evidence	6.5	7.0	8.0	8.0

Ability to understand implications & consequences of conclusions	6.0	7.5	7.0	7.0

Ability to Communicate Orally

Ability to present material in a logically organized manner	7.0	8.0	8.0	8.0

Ability to speak clearly and precisely	6.5	7.0	8.0	8.5

Ability to speak appropriately for the audience	6.5	7.5	8.0	8.5

Ability to explain points for the audience	6.0	7.0	8.0	8.0

Ability to Communicate in Writing

Ability to present a logically organized paper	7.0	8.0	7.0	9.0

Ability to explain points clearly and precisely	6.5	8.0	7.0	8.0

Ability to use proper English	6.5	7.5	8.0	9.0

Ability to use style conventions of political science	6.0	7.0	7.0	8.0

Results indicate that students are slightly weaker in achieving in all goals than in previous rounds of assessment. These differences are most likely due to variations in the ability of the students and the differences in the standards used by the faculty doing the evaluation. Both interpretations are supported by noting that assessments of student effort and commitment to learning also declined. Overall, assessment of student performance is above-average. This indicates that political science majors are learning what we want them to learn. Students show a relative weakness (though still above average) in certain aspects of the research process related to integrating a literature and dealing with research design and measurement and the effects of these on conclusions.

The Department’s recent external review offered substantial praise for the quality of teaching in the Department, for the professional activities and involvement of faculty, and for the outreach efforts of members of the Department, and had no criticism of the curriculum. None of these elements received any notice or comment from the administration. Instead, the only element of the external review that was noted was the reviewer’s criticism of the Department’s assessment plan. Thus, even though the Institutional Assessment Committee has provided generally positive comments, we have concluded that our assessment plan is inadequate.

In response, the Department established an assessment committee that has spent the last year revising the assessment plan. This plan is nearly ready to go to the full Department for discussion and approval, after which it will be sent to the Institutional Assessment Committee for comment and approval.

The following will be added to the senior exit questionnaire being prepared as part of our larger revision of assessment:

Using the same 7-point scale, please rate the following features of the advising you received:

____ 3) My advisor was able to answer my questions or refer me to sources who could answer my questions.

____ 4) My advisor suggested courses or activities that would further my career goals.

An open-ended question will provide the opportunity for students to offer criticisms or suggestions. We apologize for being unable to find a way to incorporate M&Ms and still submit this with a straight face.

[1] Some additional students who received incompletes in the senior seminar are not included.

Student Effort

Ability to Read Analytically

Ability to Think Critically

Ability to Organize Ideas

Ability to Communicate Orally

Ability to Communicate in Writing