The Texas A&M University System delivers a common set/embraces a common view of important outcomes and is accountable for sustained measurement.
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.
Upon graduation, students will demonstrate mastery of the depth of knowledge required for their respective degrees.
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.
Texas A&M University-Texarkana uses a mixture of direct assessment measures and one indirect measure to assess discipline-specific knowledge. In terms of direct measures, TAMUT collects outcomes information pertaining to: 1) Major Field Exam performance; 2) teacher certification tests; and 3) capstone assignments. This data is provided by academic programs who have aligned these types of outcomes with discipline-specific knowledge. In terms of indirect measures, TAMUT collects data from our Graduating Student Survey (GSS).
Regarding direct measures, we first collected the most recent data from academic programs who monitor Major Field Exam performance. Five programs provided this data. Results indicated that students from 60% of the five aligned programs met or exceeded the acceptable student performance standards established by those programs. Next, we collected the most recent data on teacher certification tests. Five programs provided this data. Results revealed that students from 100% of the five aligned programs met the acceptable student performance standards established by those programs. Finally, we collected data on capstone assignments. Six programs provided this data. Results revealed that students from 83% of the six aligned programs met the acceptable student performance standards established by those programs.
Regarding indirect measures, GSS respondents (graduate students who had applied for graduation) indicated that TAMUT contributed either very much or a lot to the development of various discipline-specific research competencies (87.3% average across all items, with range of 81.1% to 89.7% across items).
Proficient. Overall results on direct measures indicated that students are probably succeeding in learning/applying discipline-specific knowledge. Results on indirect measures were overwhelmingly positive.
All academic programs will continue to monitor performance in these domains on an annual basis (and will determine and implement program-appropriate improvements on an annual basis as well). For example, programs utilizing Major Field Exams will continue to examine test subscores and to identify opportunities to enrich subscore-related teaching and cirriculum. TAMUT will also identify additional ways of collecting richer indirect sourses of assessment data. For example, we will insert new items into our Graduating Student Survey to assess the discipline-specific knowledge perceptions of our undergraduate student population. (Both undergraduate students and graduate students are surveyed. However, for our current graduate research assessment purposes, only graduate students are currently asked questions pertaining to discipline-specific research skills.)
The results reported here appear to be mostly consistent with our previous results from December 2014. The one exception pertains to Major Field Exam performance. In addition to implementing the actions mentioned in the "Action" column, we will also examine Major Field Exam performance over time to identify potential reasons for this discrepancy. (Academic programs utilizing a Major Field Exam tend to administer it in the fall and spring of every academic year.)
Multiple assessment measures are used: major field tests, teacher certification tests, and capstone assignments.
Proficient. A majority of programs using major field tests report students met or exceeded goals; students taking teacher certification tests met state standards with one exception; students met expectations in capstone courses.
Even though the overall pass rate for teacher certification meets accreditation standards, disaggregated data for Hispanic and African American subpopulations is below the state minimum. As a result, the program is rated Accredited with Warning.
Programs will revise assessment processes as it appears some standards are too low or need to be reviewed for tighter alignment between curriculum and assessment measures. For teacher certification, faculty have devised a procedure for identifying and providing remediation serves for PPR, prioritizing Hispanic and African American populations.