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

March 20, 2006

1:00 p.m.
Bridges Hall 250B

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

The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m.

Minutes:

  • Moved by Gracyk, seconded by Rittenhouse to approve the December 12, 2005 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.
  • Moved by Phillips, seconded by Rittenhouse to approve the February 27, 2006 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.
  • Moved by Gracyk, seconded by Phillips to approve the March 6, 2006 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.

Announcement: Borchers reported that Physics/Astronomy agreed to suggested changes and will resubmit the department plan. History is receptive to ideas and suggestions SLOAC made, but it may be awhile before revised documents are resubmitted. Borchers agreed to work with department chairs over the summer.

It was agreed to list suggestions for improvement of plans in the SLOAC minutes. Borchers agreed to formally communicate SLOAC report and plan evaluations to the respective department chair and dean. He will also create a system to track department/program progress through the assessment cycle.

Educational Leadership:

  • Need to submit rubric for Portfolio Assessment Instrument and a description of the portfolio requirements

  • Need to submit a description and rubric for the different embedded assessment (D2L assessment tool, the last survey of graduates, and an example of the qualitative data from the Program Advisory Council).

  • The Student Learning Outcomes and assessment measures are unrelated.

  • The report does not prove clear action to address problems.

  • Document contains numerous typographical errors.

English:

  • List all outcomes in one list without categories.

  • Describe the capstone project in a bit more detail.

  • Make it clear that faculty administer the capstone rating form. The rubric looks good, but we’d encourage you to think a bit more about intercoder reliability.

  • In action, how is Continue the Capstone course an action item? Be a bit more specific in other areas as well.

Anthropology and Earth Sciences:

  • Student performance results are unclear.

  • Lacks results from direct measures.

  • Faculty scoring of students is a very subjective measure, need to fine tune rating scale.

  • There is no relationship between results and concerns – the request for a Cultural Center is not based on scoring results of Student Learning Outcomes.

  • Need to tie student evaluation to an assignment.

Special Education:

  • Student Learning Outcomes are clear with a mixture of types of evaluation/measures. Good example of well developed SLOs that are expanded. 

  • Need a description of portfolio assessment.

  • Need consistency in research paper scoring –explain/define the scoring method.

  • Feedback loop is missing - who will use the results of the measures?

  • Lacks an “emerging issue” for possible grant application. 

Social Work: Review was tabled.

Construction Management:

  • Measurement Instruments are tied to Student Learning Outcomes

  • Program shows comparison of MSUM student average national test average.

  • Request the document be on the new forms.

Master of Liberal Arts:

  • Rework the learning outcomes so that they are more easily assessed. Each should also focus on a specific skill. Since the program is interdisciplinary in nature, this might be addressed.

  • It appeared that some more mission goals could have been easily identified for some of the outcomes.

  • Do you have rubrics yet? How do you evaluate the thesis? Portfolio? Exit exam?

Suggestions:

  • Good ideas from plans/reports should be highlighted on the SLOAC website.

  • Create sample exemplary plan and report for website.

  • Request time during Fall 2006 Faculty Professional Development Day for assessment issues.

  • Evaluation subgroups should provide typed notes to share during their review presentation.

  • Student Leaning Outcomes should be numbered for ease in reference in both plans and reports.

  • Add section on “emerging issues” to plan/report forms.

  • Encourage programs to reduce the number of Student Learning Outcomes – some have an excess of 50.

  • Remind departments/programs that plans/reports should be submitted without typographical errors as they are posted to the web.

Discussion was held on length of committee appointment and ways to better tie assessment to strategic planning.

Next meeting: Monday, April 10, at 1:00 p.m. in BR 250B. 

The meeting adjourned at 2:44 p.m.


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