Program Review and Assessment: TP 4/02/07

Minnesota State University

Assessment of Student Learning

Department and Program Report

Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment activities for this year.

Academic Year of Report: 2006-2007 College or Support Area: Arts and Humanities Department or Program: Speech Communication – MA/MS/MFA

Check here if your assessment report covers all undergraduate degree programs: [ ]

Check here if your assessment report covers all graduate degree programs: [ X ]

1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?

In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

Student Learning Outcome Students will:	University Goals	College Goals	Method of Assessment	Assessment Date	Standard of Mastery	Persons (Courses) responsible
LO 3- construct a research proposal using appropriate research techniques and methodology.	MSU 1: engaged and inclusive learning community; MSU 3: major provider of graduate education Dept goal 7	A&H 1: offer quality undergraduate and graduate programs; A&H 2: acquire disciplined habits of critical thinking and creative expression; A&H 4: engage in meaningful practice	exams or in thesis/alternate plan paper	2006-7	See rubric below	Graduate faculty in the Speech Communication Department

2. How were they assessed?

In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place, and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results. If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.

(1) Method of Assessment: All graduate students in the Speech Communication Department must complete qualifying exams. In spring 2007 (date of assessment), 9 graduate students (population) completed their qualifying exams. One of the questions on the qualifying exam asked students to choose and defend a research proposal, specifying research techniques and methodology. Specific criterion and standard of mastery are listed below in Learning Outcome 3. A committee of 3 graduate faculty in the Speech Communication Department blind-evaluated each student exam.

(2) Method of Assessment: Students in SPEE 601 Research Methods (population N=12) must complete a formal research prospectus, and in that prospectus students must demonstrate the skills listed in Learning Outcome 3 (criterion and standard of mastery). This assignment was completed at the end of spring semester 2007 (date of assessment). The assignment was evaluated by the course instructor.

Learning Outcome 3: Upon completion of the graduate program in Speech Communication, all graduate students will be able to demonstrate mastery of a research methodology.

2

Student writing in exams or in thesis/alternate plan paper shows that the student is able to describe the development of a specific research methodology, compare and contrast that methodology with other approaches to the study of communication, defend the choice of that research methodology as the most appropriate choice for studying a specific communication phenomenon, and successfully apply that methodology to a communication phenomenon.

1

Student writing in exams or in thesis/alternate plan paper shows that the student is able to describe the development of a specific research methodology, compare and contrast that methodology with other approaches to the study of communication, and successfully apply that methodology to a communication phenomenon.

Level of Mastery: 100% of the assessed population meets or exceeds level 1; 90% of the assessed population meets level 2.

3. What was learned?

In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms, with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery (criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the results.

(1) Of the 9 students assessed, 6 students met standard of mastery level 2; all 9 students met standard of mastery level 1. In reviewing the results, faculty noted the following areas of concern for those students who did not meet level 2: A) lack of knowledge of appropriate data analysis methods for selected research methodology; B) general mediocre writing skills (grammar and structure); C) limited knowledge of standard research tools in the field.

(2) Of the 12 students assessed, 11 students met standard of mastery level 2; levels are progressive, so all 11 also met level 1. The remaining student has yet to complete the assignment. In reviewing results, faculty noted a continuing weakness in data analysis, especially in the area of statistical analysis. Second, faculty noted a weakness in use of APA style.

4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?

In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are planned, please describe why no changes are needed.

(1) Upon review of this material, the department noted both a need to enhance teaching of standard research tools in SPEE 601 Research Methods. The department also decided to return to an earlier method of assessment. In place of qualifying exams being written in a time-limited manner in one test session, the department will return to take-home exams. The department believes this will enhance general writing, and also allow students to use appropriate research materials to support their research proposals. The department believes that it will then be assessing student ability to develop a research proposal rather than student memorization ability.

(2) The department has continually noted the need to enhance teaching in quantitative analysis, and continues to search for additional faculty to teach that skill. Faculty will continue to reinforce APA or MLA style for all graduate students.

5. What did the department or program do in response to the feedback from last year's assessment report?

In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made to your assessment plan or assessment methods.

(1) Assessment results from 2005-2006 indicated no need for any changes.

(2) Assessment results from 2005-2006 indicated no need for any changes.

6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Minnesota State University, Mankato: Who will be responsible for evaluating and reporting on these assessment reports?