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

May 10, 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 May 1, 2006 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.

Announcements:

  • The missing EECE rubrics have been received;

  • EECE has also submitted an Instructional Improvement Grant request;

  • Discussion will continue next fall on a revised assessment timeline to present to Academic Affairs Council (AAC).

  • SLOAC should meet during Fall semester with departments/programs that have reports due in 2007.

University Assessment Report: Borchers agreed to write the University Assessment Report over the summer for review by SLOAC in early Fall. The SLOAC website will also be updated over the summer.

Psychology Report:

  • Report is from an earlier plan;

  • In some cases the assessment does not occur in the class specified that relates to the goal;

  • Does not include how the assessment information will be used, but then they reached all the goals.

Psychology Plan - Revised:

  • Assessment measures are very general;

  • Appears that only one assessment sheet is used for all the Student Learning Outcomes (SLO). With numerous subsections for each SLO, it is suggested that a separate measurement tool be created for each SLO;

  • Rubric lists three factors (not satisfactory, satisfactory, exceeds satisfactory) and does not define the parameters for each factor, thereby raising concern for inter-rater reliability;\Suggest a comparison grid be developed listing each SLO and the course where it is assessed.

Mass Communications Plan:

  • Rubric scoring grid is on a 1-5 scale but does not indicate the standard for each number. Suggest the department define each rubric scale to ensure inter-rater reliability;

  • Missing two of three rubrics;

  • The department is compliment for using several direct measures.

Physics Report:

  • Report is based on the revised plan approved earlier this semester;

  • Report reflects steps already taken to improve student assessment;

  • Rubrics used were revised based on SLOAC suggestions;

  • Suggest that acronyms be explained;

  • Suggest a clearer explanation of ETS scores be made.

Art and Design Report:

  • Appears that the same measurement tools are used at different points in a student’s career;

  • Suggest an additional rubric be designed for use by the outside evaluators for the juried student art shows;

  • Not clear to those outside the department what “all studio and art education classes” means. Suggest an appendix listing the courses;

  • The annual fluctuations in annual scores might point to a lack of inter-rater reliability and it was suggested this be addressed;

  • Goal I is redundant (both report and plan). Is it an average of the others, or independently assessed?

Art and Design Plan:

  • Goal I is redundant (both report and plan). Is it an average of the others, or independently assessed?

  • SLO F indicates that some students are excluded from evaluation. This should be more clear as to who and why. If the students are excluded because of the degree they are seeking (Art Education?), then that degree program needs a separate plan and report;

  • SLO G needs clarification as to when student presentation are critiqued – every art and studio class/course?

  • SLO G sets a lower level of student performance than the other SLOs;

  • Suggest reviewing SLO H to check more boxes for question #2, i.e. “intellectual development” and “information literacy” be included.

Corrick Center Plan:

  • Suggest the planning and reporting forms be flipped as it is difficult to tell if the form was reporting on the past or planning for the future;

  • The SLOs are broad, suggest focusing them more so they are more meaningful and easily assessable;

  • Missing rubrics, only a sample was submitted;

  • Question how “college level” is operationalized?

  • Suggest rewriting the advising and transfer outcome as it isn’t a student learning outcome, but an evaluation of the advising received.

Reading Plan:

  • Missing plan cover sheet;

  • Not clear on some SLOs, need more specifics on some of the operational language;

  • Missing rubrics, only the comprehensive exam rubric  was submitted;

  • Unclear how plan and report go together. 

Chemistry Report/Plan: Tabled as additional time is needed to complete the review.

Instructional Improvement Grant Requests: The following applications were reviewed and a recommendation for funding will be forwarded to AAC. It was suggested that both AAC and SLOAC receive a report on use of the grant.

  • Psychology - Request that questions be answered, to the satisfaction of Deans, regarding who (faculty) will be using the software and whether the software can be transferred to numerous computers?  How will the department track use?

  • Physics

  • EECE - Request a clearer statement on who is doing the assessing.

  • Social Work - Recommend that AAC recalculate salary based current allowable amounts. Request that department stipulate the actual number of days required for the work.

  • Mass Communications - Recommend that AAC recalculate salary based on current allowable amounts

It was suggested the title for the grants be changed from “Instructional Improvement Grants” to “Instructional Enhancement Grants” next year.

Discussion on assessment in general and ways to increase department enthusiasm for assessment ensued. It was suggested that the website include “good stories” on how assessment proved beneficial to a department, that Brown Bags on assessment (inter-rater reliability as a topic) be held next year, hold informational meetings for department assessment coordinators; funds be made available for assessment coordinators to attend national assessment conferences. Borchers agreed to follow up with AAC on the suggestions and report at the next SLOAC meeting

Fall Meeting Schedule: Some committee members still need to submit fall calendars before a meeting time can be determined.

The meeting adjourned at 2:55 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