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

December 11, 2006

10:00 a.m.
Bridges Hall 250B

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

Minutes: Moved by Gracyk, seconded by Voeller to approve the November 27, 2006 minutes. The motion was approved unanimously.

Update: Borchers reported that faculty grading the Spanish test are trained, that the tests given in Chinese and Japanese are multiple choice, and that Athletic Training explained the 30 percent range referred to in their plan.

Committee Membership: Borchers announced that a majority of MSUM committees’ current membership, including SLOAC, will be extended at least through January. SLOAC will probably not need to meet again until February and he will continue as chair during spring 2007 and possibly through fall 2007 as well. 

Policy changes: A final review and discussion of proposed changes to SLOAC policy was held. Moved by Gracyk, seconded by Voeller to approve changes to SLOAC policy as discussed. The motion was approved unanimously. Borchers agreed to revise the SLOAC policy manual to reflect the decisions.

Plan/Report Submission: Borchers distributed a document that updated the committee on where departments/programs are in the submission process. It was noted that Borchers and Rittenhouse are working with Associate Dean Teri Walseth, College of Education and Human Services, on creating procedures and policies specific to Teacher Education programs. Discussion ensued on whether certificate programs should submit plans and reports. Moved by Phillips, seconded by Gracyk that only baccalaureate, master’s and specialist’s degrees are required to submit assessment plans and reports. Other programs may participate if desired or directed to participate by the administration. The motion was approved unanimously.

Review of Plans and Reports

CIS and CS Plan:

  • Record of program consultation and support is missing.
  • Unclear which courses or experiences in the curriculum are intended to produce the outcome.
  • Suggest each assessment rubric be titled.
  • Suggest the alumni survey more clearly identify what solving problems are referring to and that the software development rubric could be more specific.
  • Unclear when the software development test is administered.
  • The expected level of student performance is not clear.

Theatre Arts Plan:

  • Measurement rubrics are not provided for all the outcomes.
  • Unclear whether oral or written communication is being addressed in some of the SLOs.
  • Some of the stated outcomes focus on curricular changes instead of student learning.
  • The assessment rubric for SLO #2 is not provided.
  • Suggest the SLOs be broken into subcategories to assist in assessing broad measures.

Theatre Arts Report:

  • Assessment rubrics are unclear so only pieces of outcomes are measured.
  • Suggest the program work to improve assessment procedures.

CMST Plan:

  • Record of program consultation and support is missing.
  • Unclear whether the assessment measure used for the group project and essay are separate rubrics or the same.
  • Suggest the assessment instrument not use
  • Rubrics use a 0-10 scale that is not defined or fully developed. Suggest a smaller range, such as 1-5, be used.
  • The expected level of student performance is not clear as it is not evident what an “8” is.

CMST Report:

  • The reported responses for SLOs # 3 and # 6 did not match the outcome.

AMCS Plan:

  • Need to clarify which SLOs are being assessed during the report cycle.
  • Unclear how the program matches “Global” in the mission when the program is American Multicultural Studies.
  • Suggest an action verb such as “Demonstrate” be used to begin each SLO.
  • Unclear how the methods of assessment relate to the rubrics provided.
  • Unclear which courses the rubrics align to or assess.
  • Use of grades is not a valid assessment measure.
  • Unclear what the term “adequate” means so inter-rater reliability is lacking.

Discussion ensued on linking the mission goals/aims to SLOs and whether is should be addressed in plans and reports. Further discussion on the subject was tabled to a future meeting.

Formative assessment and building on SLOs throughout the major was discussed. It was suggested assessment needs to move away from end-point assessment only and that this might be a goal of SLOAC next year.

Future Meetings: Members are to send their spring 2007 schedules to Borchers.


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