November 13, 2006
10:00 a.m.
Bridges Hall 250B
Present: Tim Borchers, chair; Ted Gracyk, Jody Mattern, Amy Phillips, Peggy Rittenhouse, Stacy Voeller, Alison Wallace
Guest: Sue Peterson, Social Work
Minutes: Moved by Phillips, seconded by Rittenhouse to approve the October 23, 2006 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.
Review of SW 470 Rubric: Peterson and Phillips presented a report on SW 470: Senior Seminar, which they received an Instructional Improvement Grant to apply research findings to social work practice in the course curriculum. Evidence-Based Practice is being piloted with all students in all sections (5) of SW 470 during AY 2006-2007. The idea is to infuse evidence-based practice into the entire social work program. A grading sheet rubric for Evidence-Based Practice Evaluation was distributed and reviewed. Curriculum changes to the course included adding a library/research component, evidence-based practice, and an element of self-reflection. Discussion ensued on the course assessment instrument and the following suggestions were made:
- Break the point distribution on the evaluation rubric into subcategories.
- Suggest assessing for inter-rater reliability following the pilot of the rubric during AY 2006-2007.
Wallace agreed to share a grading rubric she uses in biology courses. It brings together grading evaluation and assessment of student learning into one form.
Phillips distributed a copy of the Pre-test Self-Reflection survey. It is also administered as a Post-test. The survey is used to chart student’s self-evaluation of evidence-based practice. It was suggested that internship supervisors also be tested to see if they use evidence-based practice.
Update on Committee Leadership: Borchers stated that the plan is for Jean Sando, Assistant Vice President for Assessment, to take over as chair of SLOAC. She is currently half-time and if it is not feasible for her to assume the duties next year, the Office of Academic Affairs will designate a chair.
Web site: Following discussion it was agreed to delete the archive columns on the Plans and Reports pages.
Certificate Programs: Currently, certificate programs are expected to submit plans and reports, but none have done so yet. Members were asked to consider whether programs with minimal enrollments should be required to participate in assessment. The item will be added to a future agenda.
Accreditated Programs: Discussion on how to handle accreditated program will be added to a future agenda.
Review of Plans and Reports
It was suggested that the question: How many majors in your department/program?, should be added the Reporting Form.
Philosophy Report: The department was commended for its report and that it addressed areas of deficiency.
Economics Plan:
-
Suggest the department review the Philosophy plan as an example of how they are using a graduation audit to determine if students are self-selecting a broad range of courses/areas.
- Need to set what a “passing grade”
is on the multiple choice test.—expecting 70% to pass, but what is
passing grade.
Business Plan:
-
Not clear what grade individual students need to meet the 75th percentile of all students taking the test.
- The written and oral communication
rubrics use a 5-point scale. The 1, 3, and 5 scores are carefully
defined, but the 2 and 4 are not.
Business Report:
-
No major problems.
School Psychology Plan:
-
For all student learning outcomes, too many mission goals are checked. Don’t see how a knowledge base in psychology will address oral communication, written communication, ethics, etc.
- Level of student performance is listed as: required to graduate. What is needed is the expected overall success rate of student attempting the work.
- Need to define “inadequate,”
“adequate,” and “strong” on the rubric for evaluating the Specialist
Portfolio.
School Psychology Report:
-
Overall the report is good, but is vague on how the department will use the results. Suggest the department apply for an Instructional Improvement Grant.
Math Plan:
-
Suggest the department reduce the scale on rubrics, use additional evaluators or focus on specific assignments to make this more useful or direct.
- The Student Learning Outcomes are vague, with the exception of those that address calculus.
- Need to set an expected level of performance on the ETS test as reported scores are low.
- Student Learning Outcomes are not
clear.
Math Report:
-
Question whether the report addresses Math Education majors. Suggest the plan be broken by programs within the department.
- Suggest more detail on how math labs are used in the assessment process.
- Not clear whether students or faculty complete the survey.
- Suggest the department apply for an
Instructional Improvement Grant to help transition to a new way of
teaching calculus.
Nursing Plan (Revised):
-
The following rubrics are incomplete and need more development.- eFolio, Group Community Assessment Project, and Nursing Preceptorship (need to define difference between the scale ranges).
- Unclear how arts or humanities as listed in SLO 1 will be measured – not listed in the rubric.
- Since participation in the Student Nurse Association is listed as an “opportunity” (not all students participate) in SLO 4 it is unclear how every student can be assessed.
- SLO #5 does not test student’s ethical performance, but student participation in an online discussion board. Participation is not a viable assessment of achieving the SLO.
Next Meeting: Monday, November 27, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. in BR 250B.
The meeting adjourned at 11:29 a.m.
The following items were tabled due to adjournment:
- Paralegal Plan and Report
- Spanish Plan
- Exercise Science Plan and Report
- Athletic Training
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