Student Learning Outcomes

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

Texas A&M University Commerce: Integration

TAMU System Student Learning Outcome–Integration of Broad Knowledge

Bold 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.

Integration of Broad Knowledge Outcome:

Upon completion of their degree program, students will be able to synthesize knowledge from general and specialized studies.

Generic Descriptions of Campus Assessment Results:

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

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

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

Some criteria met and results indicate need for improvement.

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




1) Social Responsibility Fiscal Policy Paper

2) Personal Responsibility Exercise

3) Teamwork Student Self-Assessment

4) NSSE 2014


1) Proficient

2) Sufficient

3) Proficient

4) Proficient


1) Students in EC) 2301 were invited to write a paper over fiscal policy for extra credit; 55 of 189 students participated. Student work was scored as 3 (Exceeds Standard), 2 (Meets Standard), or 1 (Standard Not Met). Forty-seven of the 55 students (85.45%) met or exceeded the Standard of Success (60% or more) with an average score of 2.29 or 3 possible points. A second measure of ECO 2301 student work took place at the close of the Spring 2014 semester, but this time the essay was a required assignment. One hundred fifty-eight of 183 students met or exceeded the standard, or 86%. The average score was 2/3. Both Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 administrations of the Social Responsibility Fiscal Policy Paper, scored by a panel of faculty with a rubric, exceeded the original Standard of Success established at 60%.

2) For the Personal Responsibility Outcome, all history core curriculum courses required student completion of a personal responsibility exercise. Results for Fall 2013 (1,087 student responses) ranged from 47% to 83% accuracy. For Spring 2014, 959 student responses were received and tabulated, with the average percent correct ranging from 64% to 89%. In Fall 2013, when asked to elaborate on particular policies—absences, grading, late work, etc.—student responses showed a lack of understanding of policies critical to their success in class. Based on the modification that was made after Fall 2013, some improvement in student performance on the personal responsibility exercise was evident. Following the Spring 2014 results, the department determined that the students’ understanding of their responsibilities covered in the personal responsibility exercise remained problematic.

3) Fall 2013 Results (n=173) for the Teamwork Student Learning Outcome exhibited scores ranging from 85.9% Agreement/Strong Agreement to 97.5%. For the Spring 2014 administration (n=103), scores ranged from 86.6% to 98.7% Agreement/Strong Agreement. Teamwork surveys also indicated that a consistent portion of students, roughly 15% disliked working in groups, an issue reflected in written comments. Although all results exceeded the initially established Standard of Success and due to the 15% dislike for group work, a modification was implemented in the instructions. As a result of departmental response to Fall 2014 results, improvement can be seen from fall-to-spring, particularly in this item on the Self-Assessment measure: •"As a team, we had a sense of shared responsibility in working toward a common goal." (Fall 2013-86.5% agreement/strong agreement; Spring 2014-91.8% agreement/strong agreement).

4) As a Student Affairs learning outcome, Leadership Development may be considered very broad in nature and applicable to many fields in which they may be integrated. In regard to the NSSE administration of 2014, question 2 states: During the current school year, about how often have you done the following?...b: Connected your learning to societal problems or issues. This question had a response scale of "1-Never, 2-Sometimes, 3-Often, 4-Very Often." A&M-Commerce Seniors responded with a mean of 2.9 as compared to Southwest Public Universities of 2.8 and Comparison Group responses of 2.8, both at a level of statistical significance. Not only is this an idea connected to leadership, but A&M-Commerce Seniors also responded to question "11. Which of the following have you done or do you plan to do before you graduate? …b. Hold a formal leadership role in a student organization or group." This question had a response scale of "Have not decided, Do not plan to do, Plan to do, Done or in progress." (Mean indicates percentage who responded "Done or in progress.") Seniors responded with a mean of 30% as compared to Southwest Public Universities mean of 30%, and Comparison Group mean of 29%.


1) The University Studies Council (USC) determined that assessment would continue following the same Institutional Effectiveness (IE) plan into the 2014-2015 cycle. The USC also determined that it would not adjust standards of success up or down for the various assessment measures for the 2014-2015 cycle. The USC concluded that insufficient results had been gathered during the 2013-2014 cycle to justify alterations in the standards of success at present. However, the USC will continue with the assessment measures and closely monitor the results.

2) Based on the Fall 2013 results, the department faculty determined that the personal responsibility exercise would be modified to increase its clarity. After further review of the Fall 2013 data, faculty also determined that a more focused effort to emphasize policies measured by the exercise items was in order, given the assumption that many students were acculturated in high school to lax expectations regarding deadlines and grading. As a result, the history department modified the personal responsibility exercise to increase its clarity and focus upon improving student understanding of their responsibilities with respect to class assignments and deadlines. The modification addressed the percentage of students who did not understand the course absence policy.

3) Students were given greater guidance as to the purposes of group work for their development of the teamwork student learning outcome before the Spring 2014 administration of the assessment.

4) Student Affairs staff have implemented leadership development activities and self-assessments within the Student Government Association, Campus Activities Board, Club, and Fraternity & Sorority Life intended to further develop leadership in its students.


1) Student work was evaluated by a faculty panel, using the Social Responsibility Rubric.

2) The exercise examines student assimilation of information within the instructors' syllabi.

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