8.2.a STUDENT OUTCOMES: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results related to the student learning outcomes for each of its educational programs.
JUDGEMENT
Compliance 
Non-Compliance Partial Compliance
NARRATIVE
In the 2013-2014 academic year, the institution invested considerable time and effort in working with each academic department to strengthen the institution’s assessment of learning system. The academic units were encouraged to adopt the following core student learning outcomes and then adapt them to the specific degree programs.
1. Communication: Students completing this degree program will exhibit effective communication skills (written, oral, and interpersonal) appropriate for professionals in this field of study.
2. Critical Thinking: Students completing this degree program will effectively use quantitative and qualitative analytical problem-solving skills appropriate for professionals in this field of study.
3. Disciplinary Expertise: Students completing this degree program will demonstrate a level of discipline-specific expertise (knowledge, skills, and professionalism) appropriate for professionals in this field of study.
4. Research/Creativity: Students completing this degree program will demonstrate ability to engage productively in the review and conduct of disciplinary research appropriate for professionals in this field of study.
ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Based on its institutional mission, the university expects each of its 96 degree programs (56 bachelor’s, 30 master’s, and 10 doctoral) to engage in an annual process of assessment, including planning for improvements. Each degree program formulates its student learning outcomes, based on four institutional areas of emphasis (highlighted on the attachment), which are:
· Communication Skills
· Critical Thinking Skills
· Disciplinary Expertise
· Research/Creative Engagement.
The specific learning outcomes for each degree program defines what students should know and be able to do before graduating from the program. Assessment methods and metrics vary across programs, and programs plan and implement their own assessments. At a minimum, degree programs are required to formulate their own specific student learning outcomes for the four broad student learning institutional goals: 1) Communication Skills; 2) Critical Thinking Skills; 3) Disciplinary Expertise; and 4) Research/Creative Engagement. Degree programs are also guided by their department mission statement or that of their school or college as stated in its strategic plan. Each program's outcomes assessment process is captured and archived in the outcomes-based assessment tool—Taskstream. The university engages in continuous improvement annually, within all programs.
The Office of Strategic Planning and Institutional Effectives works with each academic unit to ensure that it has a continuous process of learning assessment and planning for learning improvement. The process includes:
1. Developing or updating Assessment Plans
2. Selecting or developing Assessment Resources
3. Agreeing on the Assessment Activities for each learning outcome, which is especially important when the outcome is being assessed in courses that have multiple sections taught by several faculty members
4. Administering the assessment, including the use of common rubrics, which allows the unit to provide valid Evidence of Student Learning
5. Using the Student Learning Evidence to determine if goals have been met and as the basis for planning improvements
6. Revising, as needed, the Student Learning Outcomes Statement in preparation for the next assessment cycle
7. Selecting Appropriate Learning Experiences to ensure the best likelihood that students will learn and perform as expected.
The work is done, primarily, in collaboration with academic department chairs and associate deans. The university encourages each academic unit to engage in assessment planning at the beginning of each academic year. When academic departments fail to update their assessment plans by the middle of the fall semester, the Provost works with the respective dean to ensure that it is done. This is less of a problem each year, as assessment has become a core responsibility of each department chair. Table 8.2.a-i provides some examples of learning assessments, in a summary format.
Table 8.2.a-i: Examples of Student Learning Outcomes Assessment (Excerpts from the Assessment Reports)
|
Student Learning Outcome |
Method of Assessment/ Data Gathering |
Results |
Improvements |
|
Communication Skills. Graduating students will be able to write and speak clearly and accurately about design-related content. (BS in Graphic Communication Systems) |
The key assessment for this direct measurement was the capstone portfolio. It was measured using a four-point rubric based on the performance one would expect of a first-year design professional on the job, with a 3 representing proficient. The target was for at least 80% of the students to perform at proficiency. |
2016—2017
Oral Communication: Of the 25 students assessed, 100% met the performed target.
Written Communication: Of the 18 students assessed, 94% met the performance target. |
Students are given more opportunities to practice oral communication skills, as instructors emphasize better communication. |
|
Critical Thinking Skills. Students completing this degree program will effectively use quantitative and qualitative analytical problem-solving skills appropriate for professionals in their field of study. (PhD in Leadership Studies) |
This year, the measure for this outcome is embedded in the dissertation process, through a rubric employed by faculty at the student’s proposal defense and final dissertation defense. Previously, the measure for this outcome was the completion of a similar rubric by the instructor of the LEST 997 (Dissertation) course. |
Results of the assessment in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 completed by the faculty supervisor in the LEST 997 (dissertation) course or by the dissertation chair in LEST 999 (an extension of 997) have shown that 100% of students have achieved acceptable (successful dissertation defense) levels of achievement, though student ratings vary from a passing evaluation of 82/100 to a superior rating of 94/100. |
Though assessment results indicate that all students are “competent’ in this area, review of the data has contributed to curriculum revisions submitted to the university: Proposed curriculum changes include additional required course hours and a required course in ontological approaches and reasoning. |
|
Disciplinary Expertise Students completing the BS in Landscape Architecture program who complete the Construction Document assignment will demonstrate discipline-specific expertise. (BS in Landscape Architecture) |
This outcome is assessed in the senior LDAR 445 (Construction Documents). 90% of students will score 90 or higher on the Construction Document Set. |
2018—2019: The performance target was not met. Only one of the students out of eight performed above the targeted 90%.
Results: Not Met |
There is room for considerable improvement in other courses in the curriculum that would lead to even better results in LDAR 445. There is also considerable room for improvement in terms of increasing student effort and engagement in classes that require an iterative process.
Completing an accurate and complete construction package on time represents a critical level of knowledge, skill, and professionalism within the field and mirrors tasks students will be asked to perform in a professional office setting. These drawings and concepts also relate directly to the Landscape Architecture Registration Examination (LARE) which is the standard examination for licensing in the profession.
Faculty will work with students to improve their performance, with specific emphasis on preparing for the licensing exam. |
|
Research/Creativity Graduates of the School Counseling program who complete the Creative Engagement Project will demonstrate proficiency through their original research and creative engagement project. (MS in School Counseling) |
A target of 80% of students will successfully complete the COUN 786 creative engagement project with a B or better, as measured by the evaluation rubric. |
In fall 2017, 100% of students obtained a B or Better for this Key Performance Indicator (i.e. mini research proposal). |
Given that the target was successfully met, the goals is to sustain improvement of the SLO.
What are the expected results? The expectation is to maintain and/or exceed the target outcome for this SLO. |
For the convenience of the reviewers, Table 8.2.a-ii lists each degree program that the university offers, with a link to its assessment report.
Table 8.2.a-ii: Degree Programs Linked to Assessment Reports (Names and locations of the degree programs as at Fall 2019)
|
Academic Unit |
Academic Departments |
Degree Program |
|
College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences |
Agribusiness, Applied Economics and Agriscience Education |
|
|
Animal Science |
||
|
Family and Consumer Sciences |
||
|
Natural Resources and Environmental Design |
||
|
College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences |
Criminal Justice |
|
|
English |
||
|
History and Political Science |
||
|
Journalism and Mass Communication |
||
|
Liberal Studies |
||
|
Visual and Performing Arts |
||
|
College of Business and Economics |
Accounting and Finance |
|
|
MAcc, Accounting (New program—no report) |
||
|
Business Information Systems and Analytics (formerly Business Education) |
BS, Information Technology (formerly BS in Business Education) |
|
|
Economics |
||
|
Management |
||
|
Marketing and Supply Chain |
||
|
Dean’s Office |
||
|
College of Education |
Administrative and Instructional Services |
|
|
Educator Preparation |
||
|
Counseling |
||
|
Leadership Studies and Adult Education |
||
|
College of Engineering |
Chemical, Biological and Bioengineering |
|
|
Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering |
||
|
Computer Science |
||
|
Computational Science and Engineering (Name being changed to Data Science and Engineering) |
||
|
Electrical and Computer Engineering |
||
|
Industrial and Systems Engineering |
||
|
Mechanical Engineering |
||
|
College of Health and Human Sciences
|
Kinesiology (formerly Human and Performance Leisure Studies) |
|
|
Nursing |
||
|
Psychology |
||
|
Social Work and Sociology |
||
|
Graduate Programs in Social Work |
||
|
PhD, Social Work (New Program—No report) |
||
|
College of Science and Technology |
Applied Engineering Technology |
|
|
BS, Automotive Engineering Technology (formerly Motorsports Technology) |
||
|
Applied Science and Technology |
||
|
Biology |
||
|
Built Environment |
||
|
Chemistry |
||
|
Computer Systems Technology |
||
|
Graphic Design |
||
|
Mathematics |
||
|
Physics |
||
|
Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering |
Nanoengineering |
Continuous improvement is the primary reason for the assessment process at N.C. A&T. Although programs write outcomes and gather and analyze data annually, it takes about two years for programs to complete a cycle of assessment, data analysis, putting action plans in place and collecting new data to gauge the effectiveness of the actions to improve outcomes. OSPIE then compiles lists of areas of improvement, by college/school, and provides feedback to program faculty, department chairs, associate deans, and deans.
The main support system for the assessment process is the Office of Strategic Planning and Institutional Effectiveness (OSPIE), which plays a critical role in the assessment process. It provides the framework and training needed, especially by new department chairs and associate deans, and it monitors the progress being made as well as ensures that data are properly archived. The scope of support from OSPIE for institution-wide assessment includes:
· Overseeing an audit process for the university to monitor effectiveness of degree programs and administrative units and make recommendations for continuous improvement;
· Proposing clear and cohesive action items to address gaps in compliance with SACSCOC standards and Preeminence 2023 goals at institutional and school/college/administrative unit levels;
· Providing oversight for the design of program assessment plans;
· Reviewing mission statements, strategic plans, assessment findings, action plans, and status reports for school/college/administrative units, and making recommendations for continuous improvement; and
· Making recommendations to the Provost, based on the analysis of assessment data, to inform academic and administrative policymaking, practices, and budget decisions at the macro level.
The institution’s use of assessment results helps in such areas as scheduling of classes, determining appropriate class sizes, and assigning learning resources. It also influences allocation of resources to such support services as tutoring and supplemental instruction as well as enrichment activities such as global experiences. Assessment results also assist in determining faculty hiring and the continued professional development of full-time and part-time faculty.
In degree programs, assessment data drive such decision as a gradual shift to project-based learning in the BS in Landscape Architecture program, in the BS in Economics where curriculum mapping is being undertaken to ensure improvements in disciplinary expertise, and in the BS in Applied Engineering Technology where more industry-driven projects are being included in the teaching of AET 500 to help students to improve their critical thinking skills. At the graduate level the MBA programs is integrating more opportunities for students to select topics that are of interest to them based of work they plan to engage in after graduation, and they can develop projects around those topic as they work to strengthen their critical thinking skills. The PhD in Leadership Studies has introduced a writing seminar to help improve writing skills among its students, and the faculty in the MS in Biology are infusing experimental design in all their courses to help students improve their critical thinking skills.
The institution has demonstrated that it has an assessment system in place and it routinely identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which its degree programs achieve these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results related to the student learning outcomes for each of its educational programs.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1. Institutional Areas of Emphasis for Student Learning Outcomes
2. Assessment Rubric for Communication Skills in the BS in Graphics Communication Systems program.
3. Assessment Rubric for Critical Thinking Skills in BS in Graphics Communication Systems program.