Summary. This assessment report is a summary and analysis of the assessment data collected Fall 2001 through Summer 2003 and reaction to this data at a departmental meeting. Our assessment plan includes three components that are all related to the long-range departmental goals and to specific student performance objectives (see attached Assessment Plan in Appendix A [PDF). The present assessment plan and the three assessment components were completely revised in Fall 1998. This is the third data collection period in which we have collected and analyzed the data using this plan.

A Senior Course Rating Sheet was completed by faculty members who taught senior seminars or advanced experimental courses (see attached Senior Course Rating Form in Appendix A [PDF). During the 2001/2003 2-year assessment period, 136 senior course rating forms were completed by faculty in 15 different courses. The Senior Exit Questionnaire was completed by 54 graduating seniors (see attached Senior Exit Questionnaire in Appendix A [PDF]). The mean scores for both faculty ratings of student performance using the Senior Course Rating Form, and the student self-ratings using the Senior Exit Questionnaire are present in Table 1 [PDF]. Table 1 [PDF also includes a t-test that examines differences between faculty ratings of student performance and student self-ratings of performance.
Table 2 [PDF] shows comparison faculty senior ratings for 1999/2001 to the current 2-year period.
Table 3 [PDF] shows comparison student exit ratings from 1999/2001 to the current 2-year period. Lastly, Figure 1 [PDF] shows a comparison of the composite score of all ratings for faculty senior ratings and student self-ratings across the three assessment periods.

Overall, our data suggests that our students are meeting or exceeding the student learning objectives set by the Psychology Department. Using a 7-point scale (Excellent (7) to Poor (1)), all of the faculty ratings of student performance were well above average (over 4) for this assessment period as well as previous assessments. For this assessment period, faculty ratings were highest for (3e) students’ knowledge of the ethical guidelines (M = 6.01) and (3f) students’ practice of ethical guidelines (M = 6.17). Faculty ratings were lowest for (1e) students demonstrate appreciation of/or identity with the discipline (M = 4.86), and (1c) students can demonstrate knowledge of the cultural and historical context of psychology (M = 5.13). As shown in Table 1 [PDF], faculty ratings of student performance were significantly lower than student self-ratings on two dimensions including: (1d) students demonstrate appreciation of the social, cultural and scientific roles played by psychology, and (3a) students are capable of using library and other resources. Student self-ratings were lower than faculty ratings of student performance for: (1e) students demonstrate appreciation of/or identity with the discipline, (3c) the use of statistical methods for data analysis and (3d) students can evaluate the empirical research designs reported by others.

As shown in Table 2 [PDF], faculty rating of student performance remained the same during the 2001/03 2-year assessment period compared to the 1999/01 initial assessment period. As shown in Figure 1 [PDF], the composite mean for this assessment period was almost identical (M = 5.4) compared to 1999/01 period (M = 5.5). Using a t-test, student performance was rated significantly lower for: (1e) students’ appreciation of/or identity with the discipline.

Student self-ratings for the 2001/03 2-year time period were highest for (2a) demonstrated technical writing skills (M = 5.70), (3a) students’ use of library and other resources (M = 6.06), (3b) students can carry out independent research with appropriate hypotheses, design and methods (M = 5.78), (3e) students’ knowledge of the ethical guidelines (M = 6.04) and (3f) students’ practice of ethical guidelines (M = 6.15). Students rated themselves somewhat lower on: (1e) students’ appreciation of/or identity with the discipline (M = 4.30), (3c) the use of statistical methods for data analysis (M = 4.52), and (3d) students can evaluate the empirical research designs reported by others(M = 4.98).

In comparison to the 1999/01 assessment period, student self-ratings did not significantly change during the current assessment period. The composite mean for this assessment period was slightly lower, but not significantly different (M = 5.43) compared to the 1999/01 period (M = 5.57). The one dimension that was significantly lower in this assessment period was (3c) the use of statistical methods for data analysis (M = 4.52) compared to the previous assessment (M = 4.98.)

The last component of the assessment plan is student publications and presentations. In the 1998/99 assessment period, 15 student presentations were made during the assessment period at four different conferences. During the 1999/01 2-year period, 30 students made one or more presentations at eight conferences. In the most recent 2001/2003 assessment period, 30 different students again made one or more presentations at nine different conferences. In addition, two students were second authors on a paper published in 2003.

Curriculum. In terms of curriculum, we have had extensive discussion about changing our major, partially based on our assessment data. One of the strengths of our program is the exposure and practice students receive in writing, critical thinking, research, and dealing with ethical issues. Our current discussions involve how our curriculum can ensure that our majors achieve our student performance objectives with greater flexibility for the department and our students.

The assessment data (Table 1 [PDF]) suggest that students think they are better at demonstrating technical writing and APA formatting than do the faculty. The Psychology Department also believes that students continue to need additional help with technical writing skills and APA style formatting. The 5^th edition of the APA publication manual was published in Fall 2001. Dr. Rice has already revised his summary report of the manual to reflect the changes.  In 2002, the Psychology Department received an Institutional Improvement Grant based on this concern. The grant allowed us to buy additional copies of the APA publication manual for students and faculty, instructor’s research guides for all faculty, and the new APA style Helper 3 software. For many years Dr. Rice has written a summary guideline report of APA format that he and many of the faculty use in our classes. It is too early to tell whether this software program will be effective in helping our students.

The data from the three assessment periods and other information suggest that certain aspects of the curriculum need to be modified.  The lower faculty and student ratings on the use of statistical methods for data analysis suggest some changes are needed. In the Fall 2003, the College of Social and Natural Science bought a site license for the SPSS statistical software. We believe this software is an improvement over SYSTAT in terms of user friendliness and wide use beyond the MSUM. We have recommended buying this program in our last assessment report.

Budgeting. There are no immediate specific budgetary implications in the current data. However, possible changes in the curriculum, needed equipment for faculty and student research, and upgrades in facilities may require continued and additional budgetary support in the future.  The relocation of our animal facilities with the addition of the new science building in 2004 will open up some lab space that may need to be redesigned for faculty and student use.

Retention. The number of psychology majors has been very stable in the last few years. We have approximately 211 majors in Fall 2003,  compared to 200 in 2001.  In terms of retention, we need to continue to do things to bolster the sense of identity with the discipline that our students feel through increased involvement with Psych Club and Psi Chi earlier in their academic tenure (see 1e). 

The overall faculty and student ratings suggest the department is doing a good job in the training of majors and helping students get jobs and/or into graduate school. We may need to do a better job of advertising this to current and prospective students. In the last few years, we developed a career and graduate school information site on the department web page, and a graduate school bulletin board. 

Public Relations. The results of the present assessment plan do not suggest any major problems in regard to public relations. Our perception is that our department is viewed positively by students, faculty, administration, alumni, and the community. A number of faculty members have had their research highlighted in the local newspaper. In collaboration with the Comstock Committee, we brought in several nationally known speakers to campus in the last two years including former student Dr. Margo Monteith. In the past, the Red River Conference has been an excellent way to enhance the image of our students and the department. The Red River Conference will be at MSUM in April 2005. Psych Club students have been involved in several community service programs in the past year. 

In addition, we continue to revise the departmental web page.  We hope this web page will help current and prospective students understand the field of psychology and our program. We have also added a “faculty and student accomplishments” and an “Alumni News” web page to our departmental homepage.

Revisions to the Assessment Plan. Since we just developed our plan in 1998, there are no plans to revise the process until further data can be collected, analyzed, and discussed at future departmental meetings. The department plans to continue to discuss curriculum and non-curriculum changes that could facilitate a greater sense of identity with the discipline and the faculty. One of the external pressures to change our assessment goals and plans is coming from the national level. The American Psychology Association has released a draft report called “National Guidelines and Suggested Learning Outcomes for the Undergraduate Psychology Major.”  The document outlines 10 Undergraduate goals or guidelines and suggested learning outcomes that represent department expectations for the undergraduate psychology major across educational contexts. Many of these guidelines are close to our specific student performance objectives.

A member of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System
an equal opportunity educator and employer | Accessibility Questions? | Contact assess@mnstate.edu | Updated 1/11/06
MSU Moorhead | 1104 7th Ave South | Moorhead, MN 56563 | 1.800.593.7246
home | msum | committee members | faqs | forms | grants | learning improvements
plans and reports | policies and procedures | resources | schedule status