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 Texarkana: 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

TAMUT

ASSESSMENT

Assessment of Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility at TAMU-T currently includes: (a) results from programs that have aligned student learning outcomes with Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility; (b) results from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) on items aligned with Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility; and (c) results from our Graduating Student Survey (GSS) on items aligned with Ethical Decision-Making and Social Responsibility.

RESULTS: 2018

All academic programs set their own acceptable performance standards for their students. Results from available program outcomes assessment showed students met or exceeded the standards set by programs aligned with Ethical Decision-Making and Social Responsibility. For the NSSE and GSS, the acceptable performance standard is for 70% or students or more to respond in desired ways on survey items. Results for the NSSE revealed that students met the acceptable student performance standard on one item aligned with Ethical Decision-Making and Social Responsibility but fell just short of meeting this standard on the remaining five items. Finally, results from the GSS indicated that the percentage of students who Agreed or Strongly Agreed that TAMU-T contributed to their development on various competencies was: (a) 66.6% on an item focused on articulating multiple cultural perspectives; and (b) 72.0% on an item focused on identifying and analyzing social and ethical challenges.

ANALYSIS

Overall, these results indicate that student performance is sufficient at TAMU-T. Students in programs aligned with Ethical Decision-Making and Social Responsibility met or exceeded the acceptable performance standard set by those programs. However, results from indirect assessment sources (GSS, NSSE) were mixed: Students exceeded the acceptable performance standard on some items and fell short of this standard on other items aligned with Ethical Decision-Making and Social Responsibility.

ACTION

1) We will work with program faculty to articulate the impact of Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility within their programs; 2) training materials, workshops, or other resources will be developed to help increase or maintain faculty competency of Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility (and assessment approaches to Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility); and 3) we will continue to use the NSSE and GSS. Results from the NSSE and GSS instruments, in particular, will be helpful in providing fruitful insight on the specific areas we should focus on because each item highlights a different aspect of Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility.

COMMENTS

Since TAMU-T's last report on Ethical Decision-Making and Social Responsibility (2015), we started using the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) as a possible additional source of indirectly assessing Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility. Unfortunately, the GPI was unable to help us meet our needs as we had hoped. As such, we discontinued use of the GPI. Moving forward, we plan on inserting new items into our Culture, Diversity, & Globalization Survey to collect additional indirect assessment information on Ethical Decision-Making and Social Responsibility.

UNIVERSITY

TAMUT

ASSESSMENT

Assessment of Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility at TAMU-T currently includes: (a) course-embedded assessments of student artifacts using the Ethical Reasoning LEAP VALUE rubric; (b) results from Outcomes Assessment for program learning outcomes in undergraduate majors that aligned with Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility; (c) results from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) on items aligned with Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility; and (d) results from our Graduating Student Survey (GSS) on items aligned with Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility.

RESULTS: 2013

Results of course-embedded assessments revealed mean scores ranging from 1.19 to 1.57 on all rubric criteria. Results from discipline-specific outcomes assessment showed students met or exceeded standards set by the programs. For the NSSE, 67% of students indicated that TAMU-T contributed "Very Much" or "Quite a Bit" towards their ability to understand people of other backgrounds, in addition to 70% of students on an item focused on the development of a personal code of values and ethics. Results from the GSS indicated that the percentage of students who Agreed or Strongly Agreed that TAMU-T contributed to their development of various competencies was: (a) 76.4% on an item aligned with understanding multiple cultural perspectives; and (b) 88.2% on an item aligned with understanding social and ethical challenges.

ANALYSIS

Overall, these results indicate that student performance is sufficient at TAMU-T. For the direct assessment of student artifacts, students meet the acceptable performance standard (which is set as achieving a mean score of 1.0 or higher on all rubric criteria). Since these artifacts were taken from freshmen classes, a 1 indicates acceptable student performance developmentally for first-year students. For the indirect assessments, students mostly met the standard (which is currently set at 70% for both the NSSE and the GSS). Furthermore, in majors programs, seniors met or exceeded the standards set by their programs in discipline-specific assessments.

ACTION

1) We will continue to use the Ethical Reasoning LEAP VALUE rubric for future Ethical Decision-Making & Cultural Diversity assessment of student artifacts; 2) We will work with program faculty to articulate the impact of Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility within their majors; 3) Training materials, workshops, or other resources will be developed and/or planned to help increase or maintain faculty competency of Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility (and assessment approaches to Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility). Special emphasis will be placed on clearly demonstrating what acceptable "fit" between the assignment parameters of course-embedded assessments and the characteristics of the Ethical Reasoning LEAP VALUE rubric look like; and 4) We will continue to use the NSSE and GSS.

COMMENTS

In addition to the NSSE and GSS, we will soon begin using the Global Perspective Inventory (GPI) to provide an additional indirect assessment source for Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility. We will also expand options for the direct assessment of Ethical Decision-Making & Social Responsibility within majors, beginning with research on options such as the Global Awareness Profile.

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