Student Learning Outcomes

We embrace a common set of student learning outcomes and we are accountable for sustained measurement of these outcomes

Prairie View A&M University : Ethical & Social Responsibility

System Statement:

The Texas A&M University System delivers a common set/embraces a common view of important outcomes and is accountable for sustained measurement.

Institutional Effectiveness:

For all TAMU System universities, the rationale for assessing student learning outcomes (SLOs) originates primarily from efforts to maintain institutional effectiveness, which is defined as a process of identifying outcomes, assessing the extent to which they are achieved, and providing evidence of improvement based on their analysis.

Ethical & Social Responsibility Learning Outcome:

Upon completion of their degree program, students will be able to demonstrate an understanding of and use ethical reasoning for responsible personal and professional decision-making in a culturally and ethnically diverse world.

Generic Descriptions of Campus Assessment Results:

EXEMPLARY
All criteria met and results exceed expectations with little room for improvement.

PROFICIENT
Most criteria met and results indicate mastery of objective with some room for improvement.

SUFFICIENT
Acceptable number of criteria met and results meet expectations with room for improvement.

EMERGING
Some criteria met and results indicate need for improvement.

INSUFFICIENT
Few criteria met; results indicate need for significant improvement or no/insufficient results reported to measure performance of objective.

UNIVERSITY

PVAMU

ASSESSMENT

1) PVAMU conducts internally-based assessments using direct measures of student work from varied courses across the curriculum. Standard rubrics were utilized to assess components of personal and social responsibility.

2) NSSE Question 17.G: How much has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics

3) Graduating Student Survey C-4: My educational experience has prepared me to demonstrate an understanding and use ethical reasoning for responsible personal and professional decision-making in a culturally and ethnically diverse world.

RESULTS: 2018

1) SUFFICIENT – Acceptable number of criteria met and results meet expectations with room for improvement.

2) PROFICIENT – Most criteria met and results indicate mastery of objective with some room for improvement.

3) PROFICIENT – Most criteria met and results indicate mastery of objective with some room for improvement.

ANALYSIS

1) Instructors assessed student artifacts according to a 4 point ordinal scale, with 4 being “capstone” and 0 being “lack of proficiency.” A score of 2.0/4.0 is the generally accepted target outcome. Data for this outcome was aggregated university-wide across the curriculum with an average of 2.5/4.

2) For seniors, score of: 3.1 which NSSE states as significantly higher than the Southwest Public Institutions comparison group score of 2.8.

The senior score of 3.1 was also improvement over the freshmen score of 2.8.

3) Excellent: 39%
Very Good: 27%
Good: 23%
Satisfactory: 9%
Unsatisfactory: 2%

ACTION

Continued identification and evaluation of the alignment of ethical decision making and social responsibility with learning outcomes assessment across academic programs.

Continued professional development for faculty on best practices and implementation of further strategies to enhance and increase ethical decision making and social responsibility opportunities within learning activities and the curriculum.

Develop strategies to strengthen student experiences demonstrated by a larger point gain between the freshman and senior year.

UNIVERSITY

PVAMU

ASSESSMENT

(Direct) Nursing HESI 1a) “Legal/Ethical,” 1b) “Professionalism/Professional Values”; 2) Business EBI “Ethics”; Engineering ABET (f) “Professional and Ethical Responsibility” 3a) Mechanical Engineering, 3b) Computer Science, 3c) Civil Engineering; Arts and Sciences “Social Responsibility” 4a) Political Science, 4b) English;

(Indirect) 5) National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (Very Much to Quite a Bit) 17g “Personal Code of Values and Ethics”; 6) Graduating Student Experience Survey (GSES) (Good to Excellent, N=358) 6a) C-4 “Ethical Decision Making and Social Responsibility,” 6b) C-10 “Personal Responsibility,” and 6c) C-11 “Social Responsibility"; 7) Educator Preparation Program (EPP) Candidate Exit Survey (Well to Sufficiently Prepared) Q22 "Prepared to make appropriate decisions..." for Individualized Education Program (IEP), for limited English students (LEP-ELL).

RESULTS: 2015

1a and 1b) P
2) P
3a) P
3b) P
3c) E
4a) EM 4b) EM (Gen ed.)
5) P
6a and 6b) P
7) E

Overall: P

ANALYSIS

(Direct) Nursing HESI 1a) “Legal/Ethical” 851, 1b) “Professionalism/Professional Values” 887 (850-899=Acceptable); 2) Business EBI “Ethics” 5.85/7; Engineering ABET (f) “Professional and Ethical Responsibility” 3a) Mechanical Engineering 75.9%, 3b) Computer Science 86.1%, 3c) Civil Engineering 90%; Arts and Sciences “Social Responsibility” 4a) Political Science 2.14/4, 4b) English (ENGL 1133) 2/4;

(Indirect) 5) National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (Very Much to Quite a Bit) 17g “Personal Code of Values and Ethics” 79%; 6) Graduating Student Experience Survey (GSES) (Good to Excellent, N=358) 6a) C-4 “Ethical Decision Making and Social Responsibility” 90.7%, 6b) C-10 “Personal Responsibility” 89.1%, and 6c) C-11 “Social Responsibility” 89.7%; 7) Educator Preparation Program (EPP) Candidate Exit Survey (Well to Sufficiently Prepared) Q22 "Prepared to make appropriate decisions..." for Individualized Education Program (IEP) 98%, for limited English students (LEP-ELL) 97%.

ACTION

1) Implement the AMS side of the current University assessment system Taskstream to better collect more direct measures of this outcome; 2) Investigate adopting the LEAP-aligned Social Responsibility rubric used for University core curriculum assessment at higher levels where this outcome is reinforced and integrated; 3) Continued professional development for faculty on best practice strategies that can be used to assess the Outcomes and alignment with SLO and throughout the curriculum.

COMMENTS

The University made a critical decision in 2014, to discontinue PHIL 2013 Intro to Philosophy in the core in favor of PHIL 2303 Critical Thinking and 2023 Ethics as student choices for the Language, Philosophy & Culture component area. This was a direct result of a 2012-13 Faculty and Staff survey indicating the need for more University focus on ethical and personal responsibility. Furthermore, the new core curriculum outcomes went into effect for incoming freshmen in fall 2014 with many core courses introducing elements of ethical decision making and social responsibility through the social and personal responsibility objectives required in the Communication; Language, Philosophy & Culture; Creative Arts; American History; Government/Political Science; and Social and Behavioral Science Component Areas. Results of these combined emphases will not be seen in seniors for three more years.

Information by System Members
Texas A&M University
Prairie View A&M University
Tarleton State University
Texas A&M International University
Texas A&M University Corpus Christi
Texas A&M University Kingsville
West Texas A&M University
Texas A&M University Commerce
Texas A&M University Texarkana
Texas A&M University Central Texas
Texas A&M University San Antonio
Skip to toolbar