Assessment of Student Learning - Minnesota State University Moorhead

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee Minutes

May 1, 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 Phillips to approve the April 17, 2006 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.

EECE Report:

Missing record of program consultation and support.
Suggest that full titles be used instead of acronyms.
Missing Department Chair’s and Dean’s signature.
Suggest organizing the comparison rates into a table for each Student Learning Outcomes and that they are statistically analyzed using t-tests. This would make it easier for readers to see at a glance where the averages are different.
Suggest dating both the report and plan.
In some cases there was confusion on whether the report was dealing with an old Student Learning Outcome (SLO) or a new SLO.
If data is collected yearly, why is only 1999 and 2005 compared?

EECE Plan:

Missing measurement instruments (rubrics).
Missing Department Chair’s and Dean’s signature.
Missing record of program consultation and support.
Sometimes the boxes checked on planning forms are not appropriate.

EECE Student Learning Outcomes: The Student Learning Outcomes submitted with the new Plan were approved.

The SLOAC Report and Plan submission forms were discussed and the following revisions were suggested:

Indicate that report and plan be dated.
Acronyms should be spelled out.
Add a check box to indicate whether department/program is nationally accreditated.
Each measurement instrument (rubric) should be titled.

Dialogue opened on inter-rater reliability more especially whether tests, graded by different faculty, would have consistency, particularly in essay grading. The impact of standardized testing in higher education under discussion in Congress was explored. There was also discussion on whether departments/programs that have licensing exams receive detailed data. It was noted that Construction Management receives MSUM and national data for comparison. Teacher Education only receives pass/fail data on students.

Nursing Student Learning Outcomes: A response from Nursing to SLOAC’s questions and suggestions regarding Nursing Student Learning Outcomes was distributed and reviewed. Moved by Phillips, seconded by Rittenhouse to accept the Nursing Student Learning Outcomes. The motion was approved unanimously.

Fall schedule: Fall 2006 schedules should be sent to Borchers.

Review Groups: Members agreed to divide into pairs to review the following expected plans/reports for the May 10 meeting. Borchers will send out the plans/reports when the are received.

Voeller/Wallace	Rittenhouse/Phillips	Kramer/Mattern	Borchers/Kramer
Mass Communications	School Psychology	Psychology	Physics
Chemistry

Instructional Improvement Grants: It was agreed that all members will review and discuss grant applications. Members may excuse themselves from discussion if their respective department has submitted an application. There was discussion on whether there is a need for a rubric to evaluate grant applications. The committee was reminded they only make recommendations regarding applications to Academic Affairs Council (AAC) and AAC makes the final decision.

Discussion continued from a previous meeting on revamping the assessment timeline from a biennial reporting cycle to an annual reporting cycle with an end of September deadline. This would allow time for a full year of data to be collected and chairpersons could compile the data during the summer. Assessment would drive planning (goals and budget) in the department for the entire year.

Next Meeting: Wednesday, May 10, 2006, 1:00-3:00 p.m. in BR 250B.

The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.