Assessment of Student Learning
Toolbar Spacer

Committee Members
Forms
 Grants
Learning Improvements
Plans and Reports
 Policies and Procedures
Resources

 Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee Minutes

February 19, 2007

4:30 p.m.
Comstock Memorial Union 214

Present: Tim Borchers, chair; Ted Gracyk, Cassie Kramer, Jody Mattern, Amy Phillips,
Peggy Rittenhouse, Alison Wallace

Absent: Stacy Voeller (sabbatical)

Minutes: Gracyk moved. Kramer seconded to approve the December 11, 2006 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.

Reaccreditation Update: Borchers gave a brief update and announced the tentative time and location for the Mock Visit as Wednesday, February 21, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. in LI 120D.

Announcements:

  • Members were reminded to submit their calendars so meeting times can be scheduled.
  • Instructional Improvement Grant applications total $51,000.

Review of Plans/Reports

Industrial Technology/Operations Management Plan:

  • No record of consultation with department was provided.
  • Post-graduation survey instrument was not provided.
  • Rankings of “Excellent” and “Good” are not defined on the Employer and Internship evaluation forms.
  • Suggest breaking down the information on the forms as one item might be achieved and others not.

Industrial Technology/Operations Management Report:

  • No record of consultation with department was provided.
  • Due to lack of inter-rater reliability the results of student performance are not reliable and the two forms provided do not contain any scoring that would generate numerical data.
  • Student Learning Outcome (SLO) #10 is global and cultural awareness and it is “farmed” out of the department/program. Since the department/program has no control over the SLO, how can they work to provide improvement? Suggest the department/program work to adjust their curriculum to incorporate ownership for this SLO.
  • The department/program indicates how it will use the assessment results to improve student learning (#2 and #5), but for others, it is unclear.

Library Plan:

  • No record of department consultation.
  • Scale 1-5 is not clearly listed as to what it means. Suggest the numbers be replaced with descriptive terms.
  • Instruments were not provided for the CMST 100 course online tutorial quizzes or the tour quiz.

Art History Plan:

  • Unclear what type of proficiency is expected for the secondary language study – oral, written, reading?
  • Expectations for student performance are unclear.
  • The Senior Art History Graduation Audit Form was not submitted and all the assessments will use this form, therefore it is unclear how the form will be used.
  • Suggest that multiple assessment measures be used.
  • Grades are not an appropriate measurement.

MFA Plan:

  • Need to link Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) to the assessment rubrics. In some cases they do not match or no assessment measure is listed.
  • Inter-rater reliability is questionable on the evaluation forms.
  • Suggest the Exit Interview Questions be tied to SLOs more clearly.
  • Unclear how assessment of teaching in ENGL 697 will be measured.
  •  Scale 1-5 is not clearly listed as to what it means. Suggest the numbers be replaced with descriptive terms.

Sociology Plan:

  • No record of department consultation was provided, although there is a statement that it was reviewed at a department retreat.
  • The assessment instrument used for all outcomes was not provided.
  • No indication was provided of expected levels of student performance.
  • Unclear how many different faculty teach the seminar course so inter-rater reliability is a concern.

Gerontology Plan:

  • Level of student performance is not clearly stated. Suggest the data be reviewed and a performance level set for future reference.
  • Student Learning Outcome (SLO) #8 is a program outcome not an SLO.
  • There are no direct measures of used. Measurements are all student perception. The Senior Seminar would be a good place for a direct measure.

Music Plan:

  • Level of student performance is not clearly stated.
  • Unclear what “authentic” means.
  • Rubric scale is missing and no provision to assure inter-rater reliability is provided.
  • Unclear whether whole curriculum is being assessed and not just a portion.

Biosciences Plan:

  • Suggest an SLO for research be added.

Health Education Plan:

  • PRAXIS II is not a useful measure tool as it is not required for students.
  • Suggest adding a Student Learning Outcome (SLO) for program knowledge.
  • A number of the SLOs provided will be difficult to assess.
  • Suggest SLO #6 (conference attendance) be further developed to assess whether the student learned/gained knowledge from the experience.

Physical Education Plan:

  • Unclear whether the department reviewed the final plan. The minutes provided state the plan is in process.
  • PRAXIS II is not a useful measure tool as it is not required for students.
  • Use of conference attendance as the “reflective piece” is not appropriate. It would fit better with the “seek opportunities to grow professionally”.
  • A number of the SLOs provided will be difficult to assess.
  • Suggest listing the courses where each outcome will be addressed.
  • Expected student performance is not clear.

Criminal Justice Plan:

  • Need to clarify when the pre-test and post-test are given on the CJSKT.
  • Students write a paper, but written communication is not check.
  • Student Learning Outcome (SLO) #6 is a library outcome and the department/program does not require students to take a research course.

.Next meetings:

  • Monday, March 19, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. in HA 107
  • Monday, April 2, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. in HA 107


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