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 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.
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.
Program-level Assessment: Measures and targets for program-level assessment of Ethical Decision-Making and Social Responsibility were identified by faculty of the respective program.
Exemplary- Exceeding target by ten percent
Proficient- Exceeding target by at least five percent but less than ten percent
Sufficient- Meeting or exceeding target by less than five percent
Emerging- Missing target by less than ten percent
Insufficient- Missing target by ten percent or greater
Pilot Scoring Session: Two faculty members and a staff member from the Office of Assessment, Accreditation, and Compliance (AA&C) applied the AAC&U VALUE Rubric for Ethical Reasoning to samples of student work.
Target: For each rubric dimension, aggregate ratings will average at least a 2.5.
Based on the definitions included in the Assessment Method section, the results are:
Ethical Self-Awareness= 2.3
Understanding Different Ethical Perspectives/Concepts = 2.3
Ethical Issue Recognition = 2.3
Application of Ethical Perspectives/Concepts = 2.3
Evaluation of Different Ethical Perspectives/Concepts = 2.1
No findings reported for the program-level assessment of ethical decision-making and social responsibility were at a level of Emerging or Insufficient. Sixty-five percent of all findings were at a level of Proficient or Exemplary. However, these results only come from 20 measures across four of the five colleges.
No rubric dimensions met the 2.5 target set. TAMU-CC continues to work on growing the scoring sessions for the Empower U Objectives that do not have as many embedded assessment at the program-level.
The lack of program-level assessments of ethical decision-making and social responsibility led the Office of Assessment, Accreditation, and Compliance (AA&C) to begin shifting towards a more centralized assessment approach towards the assessment of this outcome. Results from the Pilot Scoring session of the Ethical Decision Making and Social Responsibility Objective are reported in the next row.
Colleges are being notified earlier about which Empower U Outcomes are being assessed for the academic year. This will allow for earlier collection of student samples for these scoring sessions.
This is the first cycle in which the assessment findings for this objective were rated using the scale provided in the Assessment Method section. Future cycles will allow us to make comparisons between different cycles of data. We can then create appropriate action plans for improvement. Additionally, the Institutional Effectiveness Council has been split into two IE Councils – one for educational programs and one for academic, administrative, and student support services. The first meetings of these councils will be held in early spring 2019. Preliminary ideas for increasing assessment data for this objective include using embedded exam items that assess Ethical Reasoning as it relates to the field.
This is the first cycle in a scoring session was held to assess the Ethical Reasoning Objective. Future cycles will allow us to make comparisons between different cycles of data. We can then create appropriate action plans for improvement. Additionally, the Institutional Effectiveness Council has been split into two IE Councils – one for educational programs and one for academic, administrative, and student support services. The first meetings of these councils will be held in early spring 2019. The results of the scoring session will be shared and action plans will be developed to address the weaknesses identified through these assessments.
1) ROTC: Instill Army Values Professional Ethics. Cadets' knowledge of Army values and professional ethics are evaluated by their actions while in leadership positions.
2) COMM--A team of at least three faculty reviewers will apply a VALUE rubric to samples of student writing in order to rate the level of communication ethics. Target: Evaluated essays will earn a score above 2 (on a 4-point scale).
3) HIST: Understand social, economic, political, historical development. Exam essay answers will be evaluated with a rubric. Essays will be rated as either proficient, adequate, or unsatisfactory. Target: At least 75% of essays will be rated at least adequate in one or more of the dimensions (social, economic, political).
4) BBA: All SLOs rewritten this year. They are writing rubrics this year. Ethical & Social responsibility measured w/rubric.
5) PHIL: 4-5 page paper on biomedical ethics, assessed w/rubric.
6) CLA Core (English, Art, and Film) are measuring social responsibility (16-17) and personal responsibility (17-18). Plans include written exams, integration of perspectives in writing, and analysis of cultural biases and rules as portrayed in the film.
7) COSC/ENGN ABET E&G: Ethics and social responsibility performance indicators established.
Student Engagement and Success (SEAS):
8) Student worker responds to ethics case studies. Each rubric was read by two graders, and scores were averaged. Target: all advanced.
1) ROTC: All Cadet evaluations report YES to Army values. 100% proficient
2) COMM--Ethics essays in introductory COMM course for majors scored w/VALUE rubrics. The average was 2.5, the target was a 2.0. Averagely indicates proficient in introductory outcomes.
3) HIST: Percent of essays scored adequate/ proficient in 3 areas--political, economic, and social development: 98% political; 70% economic; 80% social development. Based on the sample, students are proficient/exemplary in all three categories.
4) BBA: Results will be reported 15-16. A complete revision of assessment activities was undertaken in this AY by the college under the leadership of the college curriculum committee.
5) PHIL: Will be collected in 15-16.
6) CLA Core (English, Art, and Film) results will be reported for social responsibility (16-17) and personal responsibility (17-18).
7) COSC/ENGN ABET E & G: Performance Indicator Matrix scheduled (16-17).
8) 17% of students who participated in an Ethical Decision Making and Social Responsibility training in Student Engagement & Success (SES) scored "advanced" and 42% were proficient/advanced.
While several colleges have a commitment to assessment social and/or personal responsibility, most have not yet collected or reported that data. The two programs who reported this data both met their targets.
147 participants from three staff and one prospective staff group. Overall score = 9.9 (Intermediate). A score of 11 out of 15 was needed to rate as Advanced. (10 < X < 11 was proficient/advanced)
1.) The Assessment, Accreditation, & Compliance Office (AA&C Office) is coordinating the process of university-wide SLO assessment. The office is in the process of reviewing all assessment reports w/a rubric and providing feedback to departments, and assisting programs/departments in enhancing their assessment for next cycle. In this process, it will publicize both the System Student Learning Outcomes and the cycle for assessment and reporting of system SLOs.
2.) The AA&C Office is documenting the alignment of current objectives with EmpowerU outcomes, which will improve reporting.
3.) Resources will be developed by the Center for Faculty Excellence to promote the assessment of social and personal responsibility beyond the Core Curriculum.
4.) The Core Curriculum Assessment schedules will be aligned with the EmpowerU schedule.
5.) The Ethical Decision Making training workshop offered by Student Engagement (SEAS) will be altered to better focus on the application of ethical criteria to alternatives.
Turnover in our AA&C Office has limited our ability to coordinate the various assessment schedules. Our goal is to better align the various outcomes and schedules to gather better results and help programs and departments make the assessment meaningful.
This year established baseline data for SEAS training in this area. The expected targets will be altered to better fit the potential of the different staff groups.