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: 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

TAMUC

ASSESSMENT

In Fall 2014, the history and psychology departments submitted 42 essays for HIST 1301/1302† and PSY 2301 for review. A faculty panel evaluated these essays, according to the Social Responsibility Rubric for core curriculum assessment in order to determine students' knowledge of criteria 1, 2, and 3.

RESULTS: 2015

SUFFICIENT:
HIST 1301/1302
Criteria 3-Exceeds Standard: Student demonstrates awareness of societal/civic issues within the context of the course and assignment, supplying a depth of detail and analysis exceeding the standard.
Score: 48%
Criteria 2-Meets Standard: Student demonstrates awareness of societal/civic issues within the context of the course and assignment. Score: 38%
Criteria 1-Exceeds Standard: Student demonstrates awareness of societal/civic issues within the context of the course and assignment, supplying a depth of detail and analysis exceeding the standard.
Score: 11%
PSY 2301
Criteria 3-Score: 14%; Criteria 2-Score: 38%; Criteria 1-Score: 48%

ANALYSIS

In both courses, the standard of success of 60% was met. The scores indicate that while the standard was being met in HIST 1301/1302, fewer students in those courses exceeded the standard and the average score for the batch was significantly lower than that of PSY 2301. Some of this may be accounted for in the way essay assignments are devised in the two different departments. The psychology department deliberately organized all its sections around a common assignment intended to demonstrate this learning outcome. The history department requires extensive writing in HIST 1301/1302 but the prompts/purposes of writing assignments vary with instructor.

ACTION

A more deliberate effort to tie essay assignments to the social responsibility outcome by history faculty will likely increase the percentage of students exceeding the standard

COMMENTS

A representative sampling of results is provided.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC Continued

ASSESSMENT

The products of 30 students were assessed by a panel of faculty (College of Business-COB) in Summer 2015, according to a rubric in MGT 305 Management and Organizational Behavior-GLB/US in order to ascertain students' knowledge of criteria 2 and 3.

RESULTS: 2015

INSUFFICIENT: One section of MGT 305 was assessed in the Fall 2014 term, to see if changes made during Fall 2015 had an impact on students identifying, analyzing, and suggesting possible resolutions related to ethics in a global environment. Students were able to meet the standard of success (70%) in each criteria of the rubric. Criteria 2-Analysis of social and ethical challenges, the results follow: • 33.33% scored a 1 (Needs Improvement)
• 43.33% scored a 2 (Proficient)
• 20.00% scored a 3 (Exceeds Proficiency)
Criteria 3-Recommendations and Action Plan, the results follow: • 66.67% scored a 1 (Needs Improvement)
• 23.33% scored a 2 (Proficient)
• 10.00% scored a 3 (Exceeds Proficiency)

ANALYSIS

The program faculty observed that the percentage of students who were rated as “Proficient” and “Exceeds Proficiency” in criteria 2 and 3 was rather low, and this was mainly due to the fact that the students did not identify the obligations associated with the situation, circumstances, and issues to be analyzed related to ethics in the global environment. Because of the first gap noted, recommendations and action plan showed 66.67% of the students were rated as needing improvement.

ACTION

The following actions are based upon the gaps found when using the ethics in the global environment rubric on an ethical dilemma case in MGT 305.
1. Instructions of the assignment will be revised to include following questions/comments in the "Action Plan" section of the assignment: A. If the action plan is implemented, what are the consequences and impact to the a. Government and/or society? b. Employer? c. Individuals?
B. Student recommendations should be supported with both the pros (positive) and cons (negative), which would impact the “affected parties.”
2. To ensure that students are able to identify and analyze social and ethical challenges, including the possible resolutions, power point slides indicating steps to ethical decision-making will be shared with students and posted in "document sharing" in the course shell in eCollege.

COMMENTS

A representative sampling of results is provided.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC Continued

ASSESSMENT

The products of 24 students in Fall 2015 were assessed by a panel of faculty (College of Business-COB), according to a rubric in MGT 305 Management and Organizational Behavior-GLB/US in order to ascertain students' knowledge of the following: 2. Analysis of social and ethical challenges; and 3. Recommendations and action plan.

RESULTS: 2015

SUFFICIENT:
One section of MGT 305 was assessed, near the end of the term, to see if changes made during Fall 2015 had an impact on students identifying, analyzing, and suggesting possible resolutions related to ethics in a global environment. Students were able to meet the standard of success (70%) in each criteria of the rubric. Criteria 2-Analysis of social and ethical challenges, the results follow: • 16.67% scored a 1 (Needs Improvement)
• 33.33% scored a 2 (Proficient)
• 50.00% scored a 3 (Exceeds Proficiency).
Criteria 3-Recommendations and Action Plan, the results follow: • 20.83% scored a 1 (Needs Improvement)
• 20.83% scored a 2 (Proficient)
• 58.33% scored a 3 (Exceeds Proficiency)

ANALYSIS

Since 83.33% of the students meet and exceed the proficiency for analysis of social and ethical challenges involved in the case (compared to 66.66% in Summer 2015), this meets the expectations of the faculty for improvement. Also, on Criteria 3 there is a significant improvement in recommendations and action plan. 79.13% of the students meet and exceed proficiency (compared to 33.33% in Summer 2015).

ACTION

The program faculty determines that no other adjustments are needed at this time; however, they will continue monitoring the results.

COMMENTS

A representative sampling of results is provided.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC Continued

ASSESSMENT

In Fall 2015, a panel of three department faculty (College of Education and Human Services-COEHS) evaluated 60 mid-term papers in PSY 310 Psychology and Sociology of Diverse Populations-GLB/US, according to a rubric in order to ascertain students' knowledge of component 1.

RESULTS: 2015

PROFICIENT:
Component 1-Identify and analyze social/ethical challenges, including possible resolutions. • Percent Scoring Acceptable (22.5-25%): 60%
• Percent Scoring Adequate (17.5-22.4%): 30%
• Percent Scoring Unacceptable (12-17.4%): 10%
• Percent Scoring Poor (0-11.9%): 0%

ANALYSIS

The program faculty is scheduled to meet and discuss the results on December 4, 2015.

ACTION

The program faculty will determine what action to take on December 4, 2015.

COMMENTS

A representative sampling of results is provided.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC Continued

ASSESSMENT

The first and second projects of 12 students were evaluated in SPA 333 Spanish for Heritage Speakers during the Summer 1 term by a panel of faculty (College of Humanities, Social Sciences & Arts-CHSSA), according to a rubric in order to ascertain students' knowledge of component 2.

RESULTS: 2015

EMERGING:
PROJECT 1:
Component 2-Identify and analyze social/ethical challenges, including possible resolutions. • Category 1 "Insufficient" (59-0) score was 33%.
• Category 2 "Progressing" (66-75) score was 50%.
• Category 3 "Meets Expectations" (76-90) score was 17%.
• Category 4 "Exceeds Expectations" (91-100) score was 8%.
PROJECT 2: Component 2-Identify and analyze social/ethical challenges, including possible resolutions. • Category 1 "Insufficient" (59-0) score was 8%.
• Category 2 "Progressing" (66-75) score was 75%.
• Category 3 "Meets Expectations" (76-90) score was 17%.
• Category 4 "Exceeds Expectations" (91-100) score was 0%.

ANALYSIS

The program faculty observed that the students’ performance started out primarily in the insufficient/progressing range in SPA 333. The overall evaluation of project 1 reveals that the majority of students performed poorly. Because this was the first project of many, a formative project understood as the beginning of a process rather than a product in and of itself, this result is not surprising, as students were just starting to talk about and become aware of cultural differences and perspectives. This helped to focus classroom discussion on what critical thinking entails. The overall evaluation of project 2 reveals that the majority of students performed sufficiently or met expectations. Again, it is possible to see how students are gradually improving as they work on new and more complex projects that build on their previously acquired knowledge and cultural awareness.

ACTION

It was noted that the paper assignment did not specifically grade for critical thinking – the grading rubric was changed to include this. This helped to focus classroom discussion on what critical thinking entails.

COMMENTS

A representative sampling of results is provided.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC Continued

ASSESSMENT

The projects of 17 students (Project 1) and 16 students (Project 2) were evaluated in SPA 334 Spanish for Heritage Speakers during the Summer II term by a panel of faculty (College of Humanities, Social Sciences & Arts-CHSSA), according to a rubric in order to determine if the students were able to "Identify and analyze social/ethical challenges, including possible resolutions."

RESULTS: 2015

EXEMPLARY: PROJECT 1: Component 2-Identify and analyze social/ethical challenges, including possible resolutions. • Category 1 "Insufficient" (59-0) score was 0%.
• Category 2 "Progressing" (66-75) score was 5%.
• Category 3 "Meets Expectations" (76-90) score was 72%.
• Category 4 "Exceeds Expectations" (91-100) score was 23%.
PROJECT 2: Component 2-Identify and analyze social/ethical challenges, including possible resolutions. • Category 1 "Insufficient" (59-0) score was 0%.
• Category 2 "Progressing" (66-75) score was 0%.
• Category 3 "Meets Expectations" (76-90) score was 19%.
• Category 4 "Exceeds Expectations" (91-100) score was 81%.

ANALYSIS

The overall evaluation of projects 1 and 2 reveals that the majority of students met or exceeded expectations.

ACTION

Since project scores had improved, it was determined that no additional action was needed at the present time; however, faculty will continue monitoring the scores as/if needed.

COMMENTS

A representative sampling of results is provided.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUC Continued

ASSESSMENT

The projects of 19 students (Project 1) and 17 students (Project 2) were evaluated in SPA 334 Spanish for Heritage Speakers during the Summer II term by a panel of faculty (College of Humanities, Social Sciences & Arts-CHSSA), according to a rubric in order to determine if the students were able to "Identify and analyze social/ethical challenges, including possible resolutions."

RESULTS: 2015

EXEMPLARY: PROJECT 1: Component 2-Identify and analyze social/ethical challenges, including possible resolutions. • Category 1 "Insufficient" (59-0) score was 0%.
• Category 2 "Progressing" (66-75) score was 5%.
• Category 3 "Meets Expectations" (76-90) score was 72%.
• Category 4 "Exceeds Expectations" (91-100) score was 23%.
PROJECT 2: Component 2-Identify and analyze social/ethical challenges, including possible resolutions. • Category 1 "Insufficient" (59-0) score was 0%. • Category 2 "Progressing" (66-75) score was 0%. • Category 3 "Meets Expectations" (76-90) score was 19%. • Category 4 "Exceeds Expectations" (91-100) score was 81%.

ANALYSIS

The overall evaluation of projects 1 and 2 reveals that the majority of students met or exceeded expectations.

ACTION

Since project scores had improved, it was determined that no additional action was needed at the present time; however, faculty will continue monitoring the scores as/if needed.

COMMENTS

A representative sampling of results is provided.

UNIVERSITY

TAMU-C

ASSESSMENT

Artifacts were collected from students in Agricultural Economics and BAASOL-Sociology courses and evaluated using the AAC&U Ethical Reasoning VALUE Rubric.

AEC 219 students were asked to articulate the social responsibility of professionals in their discipline. BAASOL-Sociology students were asked to articulate what they had learned about social responsibility in the class.

RESULTS: 2018

SUFFICIENT
AEC 219:
• Face-to-face: 74.81%
• Online: 56.52%
BAASOL-Sociology:
• Students will demonstrate awareness of societal and/or civic issues: 60%
• Students recognize the role of diversity in society: 80%
• Understand the role of diversity in society: 70%

ANALYSIS

The standard of success was set at 75% of students will demonstrate milestone understanding or better. Agricultural Economics students in face-to-face course sections met the standard of success while students in online course sections did not.

Sociology students performed well on the criteria “Students recognize the role of diversity in society” but did not meet the standard of success on the remaining two criteria.

ACTION

Data has been shared with departmental faculty in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. A recommendation was made that course assignments/projects be revised in light of this disparity.

The BAASOL program is in the process of revising its curriculum and will make curricular decisions to address this learning outcome. Revision of core curriculum courses for BAASOL is being undertaken with careful review by the host department of the course(s).

COMMENTS

These core curriculum course assessments highlight the challenges of student learning of relatively soft-skills in a fully online environment.

UNIVERSITY

TAMU-C

ASSESSMENT

The products of 61 College of Business students in both face-to-face and online sections were assessed. Students enrolled in MGT 305 were asked to analyze a business ethical dilemma presented in a case study. There were three components of the SLO: Identification of Ethical Dilemma; Analysis of Ethical Framework; and Evaluation of the Dilemma.

RESULTS: 2018

PROFICIENT
Criteria 1 (Identification of ethical dilemma)
• Face-to-face: 100% met or exceeded proficiency
• Online: 100% met or exceeded proficiency
Criteria 2 (Analysis of ethical framework)
• Face-to-face: 90% met or exceeded proficiency
• Online: 82% met or exceeded proficiency
Criteria 3 (Evaluation of the dilemma)
• Face-to-face: 70% met or exceeded proficiency
• Online: 71% met or exceeded proficiency

ANALYSIS

The standard of success was set at 80% of students will meet or exceed proficiency on each criteria. Students in both face-to-face and online course sections performed above the target for both Criteria 1 and Criteria 2; however, students performed below the target on Criteria 3.

Stemming from the results of the previous assessment cycle, actions recommended in support of the identified learning outcome were implemented in this cycle. Specifically, additional instructional content was provided to students in the form of a presentation on ethics and a resource offering a “Guide to Case Analysis.” In some cases, not all students took advantage of the additional resources, particularly in online sections. For face-to-face sections, a comparison of attendance records and performance on the measure indicates that students in attendance on the day of the ethics presentation performed better than those who were absent.

ACTION

Faculty will monitor the student use of videos and supplemental materials, using viewing statistics and the online learning platform. Applications in the learning platform will be used to require exposure to learning materials before students can continue the assignment.

COMMENTS

College of Business assessment data demonstrates the engagement of faculty and students with ethical issues arising from the world of business. Faculty are very attentive to ensuring students go beyond minimums in developing as individuals.

UNIVERSITY

TAMU-C

ASSESSMENT

Industrial Engineering students in IE 471 were assessed through use of designated assignments, projects, and activities in the course on the student learning outcome “understanding of professional and ethical responsibility.”

RESULTS: 2018

PROFICIENT
88.8% of students scored 70% or better on the designated assignment.

ANALYSIS

The standard of success was set at at least 75% of students will earn at least 70% of the points on the designated key assignment. The standard of success was met.

Although the standard of success was met and surpassed, students initially struggled with developing and communicating technical requirements with the industry projects’ sponsors. Students practiced in presentations to communicate effectively with capstone projects’ sponsors.

ACTION

Additional action plans include faculty scheduling and facilitation of bi-weekly visits or conference call working sessions with project sponsors as well as more engineering ethics assignments and discussions.

COMMENTS

The challenge of engaging students in technical fields with the ethical issues they are likely to face remains a core component of the IE curriculum. Faculty are engaged in developing course content and assessments that engage their students with these issues.

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