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

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.

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:

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

TAMUC

ASSESSMENT

Graduation Exit Survey: The Texas A&M University-Commerce Exit Graduation Survey has been identified as the most appropriate measure of students' perceptions of their own skills, education, and place in the culturally changing world upon graduation from the university. It was added as an additional measure for 2017 for the Integration of Broad Knowledge and it's place within the Student Learning Outcomes for the university. Students were asked to rate their progress that they have made in the following area: Broad Knowledge Integration based on a 5 point Likert scale of Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, Excellent.

RESULTS: 2017

The Texas A&M University-Commerce Graduate Exit Survey for Undergraduates in Spring 2016, Summer 2016, Fall 2016, Spring 2017, and Summer 2017 was administered to all students who applied for graduation. The survey was delivered electronically via Qualtrics as soon as the application for graduation was completed. The survey closed on commencement day. For Spring 2016, a total of 774 undergraduate students out of 897 applicants for graduation completed the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 86%. Results for Spring 2016 Integration of Broad Knowledge- synthesize knowledge from general and specialized studies: of a total of 685 responses, 95% reported good and above. For Summer 2016 of the 296 graduation applicants, 200 completed the survey at a rate of 68% completion. Results for Summer 2016 Integration of Broad Knowledge- synthesize knowledge from general and specialized studies: of a total of 187 responses, 95% reported good and above. For Fall 2016, a total of 446 undergraduate students out of 732 applicants for graduation completed the survey yielding an overall response rate of 61%. Results for Fall 2016 Integration of Broad Knowledge- synthesize knowledge from general and specialized studies: of a total of 419 responses, 94% reported good and above. For Spring 2017, a total of 594 undergraduate students out of the 856 applicants for graduation completed the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 69%. Results for Spring 2017 Integration of Broad Knowledge- synthesize knowledge from general and specialized studies: of a total of 541 responses, 95% reported good and above. For Summer 2017, of the 281 graduation applicants, 184 completed the survey at a rate of 66% completion. Results for Summer 2017 Integration of Broad Knowledge- synthesize knowledge from general and specialized studies: of a total of 174 responses, 95% reported good and above.

ANALYSIS

Although the Graduation Exit Survey is self-reported data, A&M-Commerce greatly values that a majority of students for each term surveyed reported so highly on "Integration of Broad Knowledge" skills and abilities. Graduating students reporting highly on this skills area is positive for both the university future outlook and the future of the students.

ACTION

Results were shared widely across campus with deans, directors, and other stakeholders to disperse to their departments.

COMMENTS

The Graduation Exit Survey was administered between 2012-2014 outside of the Institutional Effectiveness and Research Department and ownership of the survey transferred to the IER Department in 2015. Prior to reaching the IER Department, the survey primarily focused on student engagement, involvement, and experience and as it transferred under the IER Department, the survey questions were updated to focus on student success, satisfaction, and experience. Therefore, readily comparable questions and subsequent responses do not exist to compare results from 2013 to 2016. The Graduation Exit Survey was added to the 2017 Broad Knowledge Integration study of the university due to it's highly applicable and capable place within the university's assessments.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC

ASSESSMENT

NSSE 2016: As the NSSE is administered to A&M-Commerce students every other year, the results of the NSSE 2015 are not available. The 2014 NSSE captured a total of 448 Seniors completed surveys, yielding a response rate of 21%. The 2016 NSSE captured a total of 437 Seniors completed surveys, yielding a response rate of 16%. On both the 2014 and 2016 NSSE, Seniors were asked to rate "During the current school year, about how often have you done the following? B) Connected your learning to societal problems or issues" on a 4 point Likert scale of never, sometimes, often, and very often. They were also asked to rate the question, "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" on a 4 point Likert scale of have not decided, do not plan to do, plan to do, or done/in progress.

RESULTS: 2017

NSSE 2016 2. 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 Peer Group responses of 2.8, both at a level of statistical significance. For 2016, an Aspirational Group was added to the scale, with a mean of 2.8, which TAMU-C superseded TAMU-Commerce Seniors answered a combined 67% Often or Very Often, compared to 61% from Southwest Public University, 62% from the Peer Group, and 62% from the Aspirational Group. 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.") TAMU-Commerce Seniors responded with a mean of 28% as compared to Southwest Public University's mean of 30%, the Peer Group mean of 35%, and the Aspirational Group mean of 40%.

ANALYSIS

The evaluated questions did not change in wording or structure from the 2014 NSSE to the 2016 NSSE, making evaluation of the outcomes and relevant information more simplified. 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. From 2014 to 2016, the mean analysis of TAMU-C and question 2b remained level, whereas the mean of question 11b decreased slightly, especially when viewed against the Statistical Comparisons.

ACTION

From an institutional perspective, the results of the NSSE have informed many of the goals and strategies included in the 2015-2020 University Strategic Plan. From a programmatic perspective, areas such as the College of Business Career Services and University Career Development utilized the results of the NSSE in an effort to provide services and programming specifically designed to address the integration of broad knowledge and understanding. Moving forward, it is the idea that these student learning outcomes will be better emphasized and incorporated in programmatic initiatives across campus.

COMMENTS

The results of the NSSE are available and shared with the TAMUC community.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC

ASSESSMENT

Teamwork Student Self-Assessment Assessment 4a, 4b SLO 4 in academic year 2016-2017 S Starting the academic year 2015-2016, The University Studies Council voted to simplify the SLOs from previous cycles, reducing these down to one outcome statement for each SLO. The new SLO for SLO #4- Teamwork is "to include the ability to consider different points of view and to work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal. Students will be able to work together toward a shared purpose relevant to the course or discipline with a sense of shared responsibility for meeting that purpose."

RESULTS: 2017

Academic Year 2014-2015: Students across several courses engaged in surveys that asked them questions on their perception of teamwork, their opportunities within a certain class to engage in teamwork, and their abilities to effectively work with others towards a common goal. 1. I was able to work effectively with others in the course toward a shared purpose or goal (SLO 4a) 2. This class gave me the opportunity to work with my peers toward a common purpose relevant to the course (SLO 4a) 3. As a team, we had a sense of shared responsibility in working toward a common goal (SLO 4a) Spring 2014 (n=103) saw a highly positive response to the posed teamwork assessment, ranging from 92% (question 3) to 99% (question 2) of students who agreed or strongly agreed with the posed questions. Fall 2014 (n=229) also saw a strong response to the three assessments, though this did depress slightly, ranging from 89% (question 3) to 94 % (question 2) of students who agreed or strongly agreed to the above questions. Spring 2015 (n=120) saw the largest data spread yet- though all still positive, the answers ranged from 84% (question 3) to 92% (question 2) of students who agreed or strongly agreed. Academic Year 2015-2016: Teamwork was assessed in ENG 1301 and SPC 1314 for Fall 2015. Once again, wholly positive answers for the three posed questions (their perception of teamwork, their opportunities within a certain class to engage in teamwork, and their abilities to effectively work with others towards a common goal) were given, ranging from 96% to 98% who agreed or strongly agreed to the questions, a tight cluster. In Spring 2016, SPC 1314 was once again assessed and incoming undergraduate students once again gave an overwhelmingly positive assessment of their teamwork abilities: 98% of students agreed or strongly agreed that they were "able to work effectively with others in the course toward a shared purpose or goal." 98% of students agreed or strongly agreed that "This class gave me the opportunity to work with my peers toward a common purpose relevant to the course." A high percentage of students, 95%, agreed or strongly agreed that "As a team, we had a sense of shared responsibility in working toward a common goal." Academic Year 2016-2017: For the AY 2016-2017, the University Studies Council voted to simplify the SLOs from previous cycles, giving each a single outcome statement. CHEM 1305 students (n=136) were asked to complete a survey on teamwork and its role within the course and their learning. There were more questions to this year's survey than there had been previously, but a majority of students still answered positively to the seven assessment questions, ranging from 63% to 76% of students who agreed or strongly agreed, though this new variation may be due to the increased length of the survey.

ANALYSIS

Academic Year 2014-2015: All courses assessed exceeded the Standard of success. Continued monitoring is recommended for the next cycle. Academic Year 2015-2016: The Standard of Success for this outcome was set at 50% of students in all assessed courses report ability to consider different points of view and to work effectively with others to support a shared purpose or goal. All standards were met. Academic Year 2016-2017: The standard of Success for each part of the assessment was set at 50%. Every component examined exceeded the standard of success. All of the academic years included in the Teamwork assessment show

ACTION

This assessment cycle was the first time it was moved out of the sciences. In upcoming cycles, the fine arts will be assessed. An early adjustment we made to this assessment was to explain to students why we assess teamwork and why it is important. This adjustment seemed to encourage more buy-in from students. In 2017-2018, the Dean of the University College will launch a new initiative in the 2017-2018 academic year to clearly and consistently communicate to academic departments and instructors (1) what will be assessed, (2) when the assessment will take place, and (3) what tool will be used to complete the assessment. This information will be shared with department heads and relevant instructors.
Additionally, in order to reflect the new simplified student learning outcomes for the Core Curriculum, the Teamwork survey will be revised to reflect the new goal. Data has been disaggregated between dual credit and on-campus courses, but not between online/blended instruction versus face-to-face instruction.

COMMENTS

Teamwork is an outcome that can be easily measured via surveys and polls; students are asked to answers questions that measure the role of teamwork in a certain course. Though there will be some bias or error present, we can be assured that the information will give the university a clear and concise image of teamwork and its place within incoming freshmen courses.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC

ASSESSMENT

Personal Responsibility Exercise Assessment 5b SLO 5 in academic year 2016-2017 S Starting with the academic year 2015-2016, the University Studies Council voted to simplify the SLOs from previous cycles, reducing these down to one outcome statement for each SLO. The new SLO for SLO #5- Personal Responsibility, is to "include the ability to connect choices, actions and consequences to ethical decision-making. The outcomes for personal responsibility include two components:
a. Students will be able to understand their role in their own education.
b. Students will understand and practices academic honesty."

RESULTS: 2017

A Plagiarism Pre-/Post-Test Exercise is required for incoming Freshmen as an assessment of their interpretation and implementation of personal responsibility in their education. Academic Year 2014-2015: All first year written courses (ENG 1301 and ENG 1302) required students to participate in a pre-/post- test exercise to measure their learning and prior understanding on plagiarism while class was going on, from Fall 2014 to Spring 2015. Students in Fall 2014 answered overwhelmingly correct in the assessment of plagiarism, ranging from 88% answering correctly to a given question to 98% answering correctly. When assessed again in Spring 2015 as part of the ENG 1302 class, we saw a percent change that trended downward. Question One (Academic consequences) saw a -10% change. question two (rephrasing a quote) saw a positive 1% change, question three (using the same paper for two different classes) saw no change in answers from Fall 2014 to Spring 2015, and question four (purchasing a paper) saw a -6% change. Academic Year 2015-2016: For Fall 2015, 115 of 153 enrolled students in class RTV 1335 took a True/False quiz with the intent to measure personal responsibility and academic honesty and answered overwhelmingly correct, ranging from 98%-100%. The format and wording of the questions changed from AY 2014-2015, but the focus and structure of the assessment remained intact. Academic Year 2016-2017: For the academic year of 2016-2017, the University Studies Council voted to simplify the SLOs from previous cycles, giving each a single outcome statement. Two separate assessment methods were chosen for this academic year to evaluate personal responsibility and a student's part in it. For the first assessment, 206 students in speech communications courses were asked to respond to the following questions about ethical speaking and the personal responsibility as a performer of informative, persuasive, and entertaining speeches. Instead of the house-made critical thinking rubric used in years past, the AAC&U Critical Thinking Value Rubric was adopted.
1. Select the answer that most closely provides a definition of plagiarism. 204 out of 206 (99.029%) students answered the question correctly
2. Select the answer that most closely provides a method of avoiding plagiarism. 199 out of 206 students (96.60%) answered the question correctly
For the second assessment, 65 students in Dual Credit sections of PSCI 2301 were asked: as a student, what is your role in your education? All 65 (100%) students were able to describe their role in some way. 17 students (35.4%) exceeded expectations in their description of their responsibility to their education.

ANALYSIS

Academic Year 2014-2015: Though the majority of students overwhelmingly answered the questions regarding plagiarism and academic integrity correctly, there was still a average decrease in the percent answering correctly in Spring 2015. Despite this, student learning met the standard of success in each area and continued monitoring is recommended. Academic Year 2015-2016: Standard of success set at 60% of students in all assessed courses demonstrate the ability to connect choices, actions, and consequences to ethical decision-making through course-embedded assessment. The Standard of Success (set at 60% for each area) was exceeded. Academic Year 2016-2017: Instead of the house-made critical thinking rubric used in years past, the AAC&U Critical Thinking Value Rubric was adapted. The standard of success for this SLO was set at 80% and both assessment one and assessment two met the standard of success for all components.

ACTION

In response to Fall 2014's results, a common unit for teaching about plagiarism in both ENG 1301 and ENG 1302 was devised to be used by departmental GTAs and adjunct instructor. Other departments including Journalism and RTV adopted the quiz. History implemented a responsibility assignment. Although the standard of success was met for AY 2016-2017, for the 2017-2018 IE cycle, the Dean of the University College has asked instructors to be more deliberate in their discussions with students about this outcome and its relevance to the content of the course. The Dean of the University College will launch a new initiative in the 2017-2018 academic year to clearly and consistently communicate to academic departments and instructors (1) what will be assessed, (2) when the assessment will take place, and (3) what tool will be used to complete the assessment. This information will be shared with department heads and relevant instructors.

COMMENTS

Historically, the university has assessed this component in two ways. The school assessed students' investment in their own education. The Department of Literature and Languages modeled a system of assessing student's understanding of plagiarism, and other departments have adapted that model since then. Assessing student investment in their own education is much more difficult to assess than knowledge about plagiarism. University Studies Council has approved the use of one standard outcome across disciplines for this goal.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC

ASSESSMENT

Social Responsibility Assigned Essays and Final Presentations Assessment 6a, 6b SLO 6 in academic year 2016-2017 S Starting the academic year 2015-2016, The University Studies Council voted to simplify the SLOs from previous cycles, reducing these down to one outcome statement for each SLO. The new SLO for SLO #6- Social Responsibility, is to "include intercultural competence, knowledge of civic responsibility, and the ability to engage effectively in regional, national, and global communities. Students will demonstrate an understanding of societal and/or civic issues."

RESULTS: 2017

Academic Year 2014-2015: In Fall 2014, essays were collected from three different incoming Freshmen level courses. Seventy-five essays were collected from HIST 1301 and 1302 (out of the 1046 students enrolled) and 42 essays were collected from PSY 2301(out of 391 students enrolled). These essays were evaluated by faculty using the Social Responsibility Rubric and rated on a scale of 1, 2 or 3, Standard Not Met, Meets Standard, and Exceeds Standard, respectively. Academic Year 2015-2016: History Outcome 1: Student will demonstrate awareness of societal and/or civic issues.
History 1302: 20 students' essays were read. 30% (65) exceeded the standard, 49% (108) met the standard, 16% (35) did not meet the standard, and 5% (12) were not applicable.
History 1301: 66 students' essays were read. 65% (43) exceeded the standard, 18% (12) met the standard, and 17% (11) did not meet the standard.

Outcome 2: Students recognize the role of diversity in society.
History 1302: 30% (35) exceeded the standard, 53% (117) met the standard, 12% (26) did not meet the standard, and 12 (5%) were not applicable.
History 1301: 59% (39) exceeded the standard, 15% (10) met the standard, 20% (13) did not meet the standard, and 6% (4) were not applicable.

Outcome 3: Students understand the role of diversity in society.
History 1302: 24% (52) exceeded the standard, 44% (96) met the standard, 27% (60) did not meet the standard, and 12 (5%) were not applicable.
History 1301: 53% (35) exceeded the standard, 17% (11) met the standard, 24% (16) did not meet the standard, and 6% (4) were not applicable.

Theatre
In ENG 1310, students participated in a social responsibility class activity done in response to learning about devised theatre, which employs facts, posed vignettes and tableaux, and often focuses on a social issue for its subject matter.
For the activity, the students were broken up into groups, and within those groups, told to pick a social issue that affects students on college campuses- i.e. financial aid and debt, drinking and drugs, safe sex practices and date rape etc. They were then asked to find at least 2 statistics pertaining to their chosen topic. Keeping in mind the nature of their topic and their found data, the group was to create a staged tableau, where the students pose, and physically portraying aspects of their social issue. The tableau was then supposed to shift and reposition to show another aspect of their issue. These tableaux were presented by each group in front of the class, sharing their found statistics.
An example that one group came up with was the social problem of partying and binge drinking on campus. For their tableau, half of the group was posed as studying, while the other half partying and drinking. When they shifted to the second part of their tableau, the students who had been studying were posed graduating, getting good grades and getting jobs. The students that had posed while partying were portrayed as failing classes, not graduating and even dying. They coupled this with statistical data showing that the correlation between the amount of drinking each week with the final grade earned in a class by a student. Students were graded on how well they demonstrated social responsibility in the activity.
Fall 2015: of the 47 students evaluated, 8 (17%) earned excellent scores, 10 (21%) received good scores, 8 (17%) received average scores, 9 (19%) received poor scores, 9 (19%) received failing scores, and 3 (6%) did not participate.
Spring 2016: of the 47 students evaluated, 8 (17%) earned excellent scores, 10 (21%) received good scores, 8 (17%) received average scores, 9 (19%) received poor scores, 9 (19%) received failing scores, and 3 (6%) did not participate.
(Please note that the results were the same both semesters.)
Academic Year 2016-2017: The University Studies Council voted to simplify the SLOs from previous cycles, giving each a single outcome statement. The university took the opportunity to conduct several assessments to measure and gauge a student's reaction to and perception of social responsibility. Final Presentations: In ENG 1302, 11 final presentations were assessed with an in-house rubric, working to measure a student's awareness of social/civic issues, recognize the role of diversity in society, and understand the role of role of diversity in society. Regarding a student's ability to demonstrate awareness of societal and/or civic issues, 8 out of 11 (72.2%) of students exceeded the standard, 2 out of 11 (18%) met the standard, and 1 out of 11 (9%) fell below the standard. That means that 90% of students met the standard. In the area of ability to recognize the role of diversity in society, 63.5% of students met the standard, and in the area of student understanding the role of diversity in society, 63% of the students met the standard. Philosophy Essays: Using the same rubric from the END 1302 final presentations, PHIL 1301 assessed 32 separate papers submitted by students and saw a slightly depressed success rate compared to the first assessment method. In the area of ability to demonstrate awareness of societal and/or civic issues, there was a 53% success rate. In the area of ability to recognize the role of diversity in society, again there was a 53% success rate. In the area of ability to understand the role of role of diversity in society, there was a 44% success rate. With the final assessment method utilized, we see a difference in rubric being used for evaluation; the AAC&U Ethical Reasoning Value Rubric. English Essays: 67 Dual Credit ENG 1302 papers were assessed. In the area of understanding different ethical perspectives and concepts, 11% met the benchmark, 69% exceeded the benchmark, and 17% produced capstone worthy work. In the area of ethical issue recognition, 17% met the benchmark, 73% exceeded the benchmark, and 7% produced capstone worthy work. In the area of application of ethical perspectives/ concepts, 11% met the benchmark, 53% exceeded the benchmark, and 8% produced capstone worthy work. In the area of evaluation of different ethical perspectives/concepts, 26% met the benchmark, 42% exceeded the benchmark, and 8% produced capstone worthy work.

ANALYSIS

Academic Year 2014-2015: ENG 1302 added a reflective element to research essay to require students to think though ethics of research methods. Action for 2015-2016: Other departments including Journalism and RTV adopted the quiz. History implemented a responsibility assignment Academic Year 2016-2017: The standard of success as it is included on the 2016-2017 IE Plan is 80%. For ENG 1302:
Component 1: 90% of students met the standard.
Component 2: 63% of students met the standard.
Component 3: 63% of students met the standard.

For Philosophy 1301: the standard of success was not met in any component.

For Dual Credit English: students met or exceeded the benchmark by the required standard of +20% for every area except evaluation of different ethical perspectives/ concepts.

ACTION

ENG 1302 added a reflective element to research essay to require students to think though ethics of research methods. Plagiarism quiz was adopted by more academic units. A new Director of First-Year Writing has been hired, and standard syllabi for ENG 1301 and ENG 1302 have been written by a faculty committee with consultation from the Dean of the University College. The Dean of the University College will launch a new initiative in the 2017-2018 academic year to clearly and consistently communicate to academic departments and instructors (1) what will be assessed, (2) when the assessment will take place, and (3) what tool will be used to complete the assessment. This information will be shared with department heads and relevant instructors.

COMMENTS

These assessments addressed Student Learning Outcome 6a- Departments select appropriate core curriculum learning outcomes for their courses for their courses from the list of student learning outcomes. As part of testing of this rubric, no course that had selected outcome 6b were yet included in Fall 2014’s assessments. We anticipate more departments will choose to utilize the plagiarism quiz given the importance of intellectual property in academic disciplines. For Philosophy: Adopting a new rubric may have posed some changes in results. For English: This year there was no one serving in the position of Director of First-Year Writing, so there was no standardization of material and no Celebration of Student Writing.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC

ASSESSMENT

1) Social Responsibility Fiscal Policy Paper

2) Personal Responsibility Exercise

3) Teamwork Student Self-Assessment

4) NSSE 2014

RESULTS: 2014

1) Proficient

2) Sufficient

3) Proficient

4) Proficient

ANALYSIS

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%.

ACTION

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.

COMMENTS

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