Sam Houston State University (SHSU) identifies expected collegiate-level undergraduate general education outcomes, regularly assesses the extent to which students achieve these outcomes, and seeks to identify actions for improvement based on an analysis of the results from its general education outcomes assessment processes. Following a state-wide Texas General Education Core Curriculum redesign (hereafter referred to as core curriculum) for all public institutions in the State of Texas, SHSU implemented a new University-wide core curriculum in the fall 2014 semester. As part of the 2014 core curriculum redesign, SHSU adopted the following six general education outcomes (hereafter referred to as core learning outcomes) [1] for all undergraduate students:
These core learning outcomes represent necessary intellectual and practical skills and abilities that are essential for all student learning and will help prepare SHSU students for living in a diverse world. Student attainment of these core learning outcomes represents a vital component of SHSU’s mission to promote high-quality education to students for the benefit of regional, state, national, and international constituencies [2]. All students, regardless of location or learning modality (e.g., face-to-face, online), are expected to attain these core learning outcomes. Therefore, the assessment plan developed by SHSU to evaluate student attainment of these core learning outcomes includes all students, regardless of location or learning modality.
All undergraduate degree-seeking students at SHSU are required to complete their 42-hour core curriculum, which consists of a number of different course options within eight core component areas, as well as a core component option area. Depending upon the placement of a core curriculum course within each component area, each course is required to promote student learning and attainment of at least three of these core learning outcomes. A matrix is provided here to give greater insight into the alignment of each core component area and SHSU’s core learning outcomes [3]. See Standard 9.3 for additional detail regarding the core curriculum at SHSU.
The core curriculum at SHSU is intended to provide students with a necessary foundation of knowledge and skills relating to each of the six core learning outcomes identified by SHSU. It is further expected that students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities will continue to develop throughout the entirety of the students’ undergraduate curriculum and experiences in the co-curricular environment. Therefore, SHSU has developed a robust assessment plan designed to assess student learning and attainment of these six core learning outcomes using a mixture of direct and indirect student learning measures. These measures represent a mixture of course-embedded and external assessments. This assessment approach yields multiple sources of student learning and achievement data from multiple points throughout the curriculum. This triangulation of direct and indirect sources of data from multiple points within the undergraduate curriculum provides SHSU with deeper insight into student attainment of these core learning outcomes.
Assessment of the core learning outcomes at SHSU is a living process, and assessment approaches continue to evolve over time. The University is constantly seeking ways to improve its core learning assessment processes and to collect additional data that can be used to improve student learning at the University. Responsibility for facilitating the assessment of SHSU’s core learning outcomes rests with the Office of Academic Planning and Assessment (OAPA) [4]. OAPA coordinates logistics related to the assessment processes, conducts scoring sessions of student artifacts, completes basic analysis of the assessment results, and reports the data to a wide range of constituents so that the University community can use those data to identify actions for improvement.
The current core learning outcomes assessment plan for SHSU is relatively new, having gone into effect with the new SHSU core curriculum in the fall of 2014. Assessment processes have been developed and implemented over time, with early efforts focused on collecting baseline data and refining assessment processes and methods. Despite the developing nature of much of SHSU’s core learning data, the University has already been able to use much of the data to identify areas for improvement and implement actions.
To promote transparency and encourage use of core assessment data, findings and results from the assessment of the core learning outcomes are made available on the OAPA website [5]. Additionally, college- and department-specific data are provided back to the colleges, departments, and programs for analysis and development of actions for improvement within their areas. Data are also provided to the University administration to inform development of institutional-level actions. Finally, core assessment data are also provided to the Core Curriculum Assessment Committee for review and recommendations [6]. This committee is chaired by the Director of Assessment and consists of an associate dean and a senior faculty member from each of the seven academic colleges, as well as one ex officio representative from the Division of Student Affairs. The purpose of this committee is to review and recommend changes, as needed, to the core curriculum assessment process at SHSU; to help facilitate the assessment of SHSU’s core learning outcomes; to review all collected assessment data; and to provide recommendations for ways to improve student learning across the University [7] [8] [9] [10].
To provide the reader with an understanding of SHSU’s core assessment processes, this narrative includes a discussion of the assessment approaches used to evaluate student learning and achievement of each of the core learning outcomes, highlights data from these assessments, and provides evidence of efforts to seek improvement at SHSU based on the analysis of these results. The below matrix provides a visual depiction of SHSU’s core learning outcomes and the various assessment measures for each. Data is provided for the most recent year of completed analysis for each measure.
| Core Learning Outcome | Assessment Methods |
|---|---|
| Critical Thinking | Critical Thinking Assessment (CAT) Test |
| Texas Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills (TACTS) | |
| National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) | |
| Communication | Assessment of Written Communication (AWC) |
| Freshman English Course-Level Writing Assessment | |
| Critical Thinking Assessment (CAT) Test | |
| National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) | |
| Empirical and Quantitative Reasoning | Critical Thinking Assessment (CAT) Test |
| Texas Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills (TACTS) | |
| National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) | |
| Teamwork | Teamwork Self-Reflection Instrument (TSRI) |
| National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) | |
| Personal Responsibility | Course-Embedded Contemporary Moral Issues Assessment |
| National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) | |
| Social Responsibility | Course-Embedded American Government Assessment |
| Course-Embedded Texas Government Assessment | |
| Course-Embedded Contemporary Moral Issues Assessment | |
| National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) | |
| National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2016 Civic Engagement Topical Module | |
| National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2016 Global Learning Topical Module |
Critical Thinking
SHSU uses multiple measures to assess the core learning outcome of critical thinking. These measures allow SHSU to collect a wealth of data across multiple points of the curriculum using multiple sources. By triangulating assessment data from multiple sources and from multiple places within the curriculum, faculty, staff, and administrators at SHSU are able to gain greater insight into student critical thinking skills and abilities, identify student strengths and weaknesses, and develop appropriate actions for improvement when needed. Each assessment measure for critical thinking is highlighted below, and relevant assessment data and reports are provided detailing student critical thinking achievement.
Critical Thinking Assessment Test (CAT) [11]
The CAT is a nationally normed short answer essay test designed to assess critical thinking and problem-solving skills. The faculty-scored 1-hour test evaluates students’ abilities in twelve different skill areas across four domains related to critical thinking:
Beginning with the 2015-2016 academic year, the CAT has been administered each spring semester to approximately 500 students within upper division courses (i.e., 3000- and 4000-level) identified within the undergraduate departments from each college. On a 3-year cycle all colleges at SHSU participate in the CAT assessment. CAT results are available for the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 academic years:
Academic Year 2016
Academic Year 2017
Academic Year 2018
Texas Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills (TACTS)
The TACTS is a locally developed proprietary instrument designed to measure critical thinking, empirical, and quantitative skills. This multiple choice exam is administered annually in PHIL 2303: Critical Thinking, a core curriculum course taken by many students at SHSU to help satisfy their core course requirements. The TACTS is administered in all PHIL 2303: Critical Thinking sections each fall and spring semester. Student results are analyzed annually to determine whether students are making statistically significant gains from pre-test to post-test.
TACTS results are available for the 2015-2016 [22] and 2016-2017 [23] academic years.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) [24]
The NSSE is a student perceptions survey designed to assess student and institution behaviors related to good practices in undergraduate education. Through institution self-selected peer group and student population cohorts, institutions are able to compare student responses on individual questions and nationally on the five NSSE Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice. The NSSE is administered to first-year and senior students every third year at SHSU and was last administered in the spring semester of 2016.
The NSSE provides valuable data regarding student perceptions of learning and engagement for first-year [25] and senior [26] students related to critical thinking indicators. Specific comparison data aligned with each of SHSU’s core curriculum outcomes are available for first-year [27] and senior [28] students.
Communication
SHSU uses multiple measures to assess the core learning outcome of communication. These measures allow SHSU to collect a wealth of data across multiple points of the curriculum using multiple sources. By triangulating assessment data from multiple sources and from multiple places within the curriculum, faculty, staff, and administrators at SHSU are able to gain greater insight into student communication skills and abilities, identify student strengths and weaknesses, and develop appropriate actions for improvement when needed. Each assessment measure for communication is highlighted below, and relevant assessment data and reports are provided detailing student communication achievement.
Assessment of Written Communication (AWC)
Each fall semester approximately 500 student writing artifacts are collected from upper division (i.e., 3000- and 4000-level) courses identified within each academic department. Over a 3-year cycle all colleges participate in this assessment. Student writing artifacts are scored using a locally developed writing rubric [29]. Using this rubric, student written communication skills are examined across four separate domains: (a) Ideas/Critical Thinking/Synthesis, (b) Style, (c) Organization, and (d) Conventions. Student scores are calculated for each individual domain of written communication ability, as well as an overall writing score. Results from the AWC assessments are provided here for the 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 academic years:
Academic Year 2015
Academic Year 2016
Academic Year 2017
Critical Thinking Assessment Test
The CAT, as described previously, is also a valuable source of assessment data for written and visual communication. In particular, the instrument addresses students’ abilities to accomplish the following:
As previously noted, CAT results are available for the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 academic years:
Academic Year 2016
Academic Year 2017
Academic Year 2018
English Course-Level Assessment
Each spring semester, writing samples from freshman, sophomore, and senior English writing enhanced courses are collected, reviewed, and evaluated against a common internally developed rubric by the faculty within the Department of English. In addition to being used by the University to help evaluate student written communication, the faculty within the Department of English use the data as part of their ongoing programmatic assessments. Data are available from the English Course-level Assessment for the 2014-2015 [39] and 2015-2016 [40] academic years.
National Survey of Student Engagement
The NSSE, as described previously, is administered to first-year and senior students every third year at SHSU and provides valuable data to inform SHSU’s assessment of communication.
The NSSE provides valuable data regarding student perceptions of learning and engagement for first-year [25] and senior [26] students related to communication indicators. Specific comparison data aligned with each of SHSU’s core curriculum outcomes are available for first-year [27] and senior [28] students.
Empirical and Quantitative Reasoning
SHSU uses multiple measures to assess the core learning outcome of empirical and quantitative reasoning. These measures allow SHSU to collect a wealth of data across multiple points of the curriculum using multiple sources. By triangulating assessment data from multiple sources and from multiple places within the curriculum, faculty, staff, and administrators at SHSU are able to gain greater insight into student empirical and quantitative reasoning skills and abilities, identify student strengths and weaknesses, and develop appropriate actions for improvement when needed. Each assessment measure for empirical and quantitative reasoning is highlighted below, and relevant assessment data and reports are provided detailing student empirical and quantitative reasoning achievement.
Critical Thinking Assessment Test
The CAT, as described previously, also provides data on students’ empirical and quantitative reasoning skills and abilities. In particular, the instrument addresses students’ abilities to accomplish the following:
As noted previously, CAT results are available for the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 academic years:
Academic Year 2016
Academic Year 2017
Academic Year 2018
Texas Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills
The TACTS, as described previously, is administered in all PHIL 2303: Critical Thinking sections each fall and spring semester. Student results are analyzed annually to determine whether students are making statistically significant gains from pre-test to post-test in empirical and quantitative reasoning knowledge. TACTS results are available for the 2016 [22] and 2017 [23] academic years.
National Survey of Student Engagement
The NSSE, as described previously, is administered to first-year and senior students every third year at SHSU and provides valuable data to inform SHSU’s assessment of empirical and quantitative reasoning.
The NSSE provides valuable data regarding student perceptions of learning and engagement for first-year [25] and senior [26] students related to empirical and quantitative reasoning indicators. Specific comparison data aligned with each of SHSU’s core curriculum outcomes are available for first-year [27] and senior [28] students.
Teamwork
SHSU uses multiple measures to assess the core learning outcome of teamwork. These measures allow SHSU to collect a wealth of data across multiple points of the curriculum using multiple sources. By triangulating assessment data from multiple sources and from multiple places within the curriculum, faculty, staff, and administrators at SHSU are able to gain greater insight into student teamwork skills and abilities, identify student strengths and weaknesses, and develop appropriate actions for improvement when needed. Each assessment measure for teamwork is highlighted below, and relevant assessment data and reports are provided detailing student teamwork achievement.
Teamwork Self-Reflection Instrument (TSRI) [41]
Adapted from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Teamwork VALUE Rubric [42], the locally-developed TSRI was a pilot project implemented during the fall 2016 semester to assess students’ self-perceived actions, attitudes, and behaviors in a team setting. Data gathered from this pilot administration helped to inform changes to the TSRI instrument design and implementation, with the revised version of the instrument tested during the fall 2017 and spring 2018 semesters. The TSRI is scheduled for full implementation beginning in the fall 2018 semester.
TSRI results from the initial fall 2016 [43], fall 2017 [44], and spring 2018 [45] pilot administrations are available.
National Survey of Student Engagement
The NSSE, as described previously, is administered to first-year and senior students every third year at SHSU and provides valuable data to inform SHSU’s assessment of teamwork.
The NSSE provides valuable data regarding student perceptions of learning and engagement for first-year [25] and senior [26] students related to teamwork indicators. Specific comparison data aligned with each of SHSU’s core curriculum outcomes are available for first-year [27] and senior [28] students.
Social Responsibility
SHSU uses multiple measures to assess the core learning outcome of social responsibility. These measures allow SHSU to collect a wealth of data across multiple points of the curriculum using multiple sources. By triangulating assessment data from multiple sources and from multiple places within the curriculum, faculty, staff, and administrators at SHSU are able to gain greater insight into student social responsibility skills and abilities, identify student strengths and weaknesses, and develop appropriate actions for improvement when needed. Each assessment measure for social responsibility is highlighted below, and relevant assessment data and reports are provided detailing student social responsibility achievement.
Course-Embedded American Government Assessment
Each fall semester, a locally developed assessment is administered in all sections of POLS 2305: American Government. This test is designed to measure social responsibility, particularly as it relates to students’ civic responsibility and students’ abilities to engage in national communities. Student results are analyzed annually to determine whether students are making statistically significant gains in social responsibility from pre-test to post-test. In addition to being used by SHSU to help evaluate student social responsibility, the faculty within the Political Science Department use the data as part of their ongoing programmatic assessment efforts. Results from the Course Embedded American Government Assessment are available for the fall 2015 [46], fall 2016 [47], and fall 2017 [48] semesters.
Course-Embedded Texas Government Assessment
Each spring semester, a locally developed pre- to post-test is administered in all sections of POLS 2306: Texas Government. This test is designed to measure social responsibility, particularly as it relates to students’ civic responsibility and students’ abilities to engage in regional communities. Student results are analyzed annually to determine whether students are making statistically significant gains in social responsibility. In addition to being used by the faculty within the Political Science department as part of their ongoing programmatic assessment, these data are also used by SHSU to help evaluate student social responsibility. Results from the Course-Embedded Texas Government Assessment are available for the spring 2016 [46] and spring 2017 [49] semesters.
Course-Embedded Contemporary Moral Issues Assessment
Each fall and spring semester, a locally developed assessment is administered within all sections of PHIL 2306: Contemporary Moral Issues. This instrument, which consists of 25 multiple-choice questions, was developed by faculty teaching the course and is administered to students enrolled in those courses at the start and end of each semester. Students’ pre-to-post test scores are analyzed to determine whether students are making statistically significant learning gains from pre-test to post-test.
Results from the Course-Embedded Contemporary Moral Issues Assessment are available for the 2016 [50] and 2017 [51] academic years.
National Survey of Student Engagement
The NSSE, as described previously, is administered to first-year and senior students every third year at SHSU and provides valuable data to inform SHSU’s assessment of social responsibility.
The NSSE provides valuable data regarding student perceptions of learning and engagement for first-year [25] and senior [26] students related to social responsibility indicators. Specific comparison data aligned with each of SHSU’s core curriculum outcomes are available for first-year [27] and senior [28] students.
National Survey of Student Engagement 2016 Civic Engagement Topical Module
As part of the 2016 NSSE administration, first-year and senior students participated in the NSSE 2016 Civic Engagement Topical Module. This module was adapted from a pilot survey developed by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and asks students to assess their conflict resolution skills and examine how often they have engaged with local, campus, and state/national/global issues. The module complements questions from the main NSSE survey about service learning, community service, volunteer work, and becoming an informed and active citizen. Results from the Civic Engagement Topical Module are available for first-year [52] and senior [53] students.
National Survey of Student Engagement 2016 Global Learning Topical Module
As part of the 2016 NSSE administration, first-year and senior students participated in the NSSE 2016 Global Learning Topical Module. This module assesses student experiences and coursework that emphasize global affairs, world cultures, nationalities, religions, and other international topics and complements the core NSSE questionnaire regarding student experiences with people from different backgrounds, course emphasis on integrative and reflective learning, and participation in study abroad. Results from the Global Learning Topical Module are available for first-year [54] and senior [55] students.
Personal Responsibility
SHSU uses multiple measures to assess the core learning outcome of personal responsibility. These measures allow SHSU to collect a wealth of data across multiple points of the curriculum using multiple sources. By triangulating assessment data from multiple sources and from multiple places within the curriculum, faculty, staff, and administrators at SHSU are able to gain greater insight into student personal responsibility skills and abilities, identify student strengths and weaknesses, and develop appropriate actions for improvement when needed. Each assessment measure for personal responsibility is highlighted below, and relevant assessment data and reports are provided detailing student personal responsibility achievement.
Course-Embedded Contemporary Moral Issues Assessment
As described previously, the Course-Embedded Contemporary Moral Issues Assessment provides valuable insight into students’ personal responsibility knowledge. Students’ pre-to-post test scores are analyzed to determine whether students are making statistically significant learning gains from pre-test to post-test. Results from the Course-Embedded Contemporary Moral Issues Assessment are available for the 2016 [50] and 2017 [51] academic years.
National Survey of Student Engagement
The NSSE, as described previously, is administered to first-year and senior students every third year at SHSU and provides valuable data to inform SHSU’s assessment of personal responsibility.
The NSSE provides valuable data regarding student perceptions of learning and engagement for first-year [25] and senior [26] students related to personal responsibility indicators. Specific comparison data aligned with each of SHSU’s core curriculum outcomes are available for first-year [27] and senior [28] students.
How Core Learning Outcomes Data Are Driving Improvement Efforts at SHSU
Based on analysis of data gathered through its core learning outcomes assessment efforts, SHSU has implemented a number of improvement efforts at the program and University levels. Based upon both targeted and holistic reviews of the core curriculum assessment data in recent years, SHSU has gained valuable information regarding areas of strength and areas requiring additional attention and deeper assessments. Examples are provided here to demonstrate these efforts.
Review of Core Learning Outcomes Data by the Core Curriculum Assessment Committee
During the 2017-2018 academic year, members of the Core Curriculum Assessment Committee were tasked with reviewing data collected through SHSU’s core learning outcomes assessment efforts [9] [10]. Subcommittees for each of the six core learning outcomes were charged with providing the following:
Although the subcommittee efforts remain ongoing, preliminary reports were completed for critical thinking [56], empirical and quantitative reasoning [57], personal responsibility [58], and social responsibility [59]. A summary of the recommendations from the subcommittees are provided.
Critical Thinking Subcommittee Report [56]
After reviewing and analyzing the institutions’ various data measures informing critical thinking and determining that SHSU students, when compared to their peers, were performing slightly under national averages and that variations were apparent in student critical thinking performance by college and department, the subcommittee determined a need to further investigate institutional definitions and classroom assessment approaches. The subcommittee concluded that it is a challenge to assess critical thinking because of the difficulty of mapping assessments of critical thinking to particular instructor and course-based critical thinking instruction.
As a result, the subcommittee immediately developed and pursued an action to request information from instructors (via the appropriate associate deans) regarding the instructors’ definitions and approaches to teaching critical thinking. Specifically, the following questions were asked:
A total of 26 responses were received by the subcommittee. In terms of the disciplines represented, the responses spanned many of the departments and colleges at SHSU, including Agricultural Sciences, Business, Biology, Chemistry, Criminal Justice, Family and Consumer Sciences, Geography, Kinesiology, Mathematics, Mass Communication, Music, and Physics. The results from the subcommittee’s survey are provided in the following documents:
The elements listed in Elements and Definitions of Critical Thinking [60] were based on the elements and dispositions of critical thinking identified by the subcommittee as part of a larger literature review, as well as additional elements identified by the surveyed instructors. To address the range of responses, the subcommittee found it necessary to group some of the elements together based on common themes. The goal was to determine if the elements of critical thinking and dispositions to think critically were being addressed in the courses, rather than to make nuanced distinctions.
The most common element of critical thinking identified was related to problem solving, which includes the application of knowledge to address problems. The second and third most commonly cited elements were related to evaluation and to analysis and argument. Metacognition, which includes the avoidance of bias and use of self-regulation of thought processes, was cited by less than a third of the respondents. Only two instructors specifically mentioned valuing or seeking truth/valuing correctness, and only one course included reference to ethical thinking.
The Methods of Teaching Critical Thinking document [61] revealed that discussion, whether in face-to-face groups or online, was, by far, the most commonly used method to teach critical thinking. The second most commonly used method was some form of application of the concepts taught in class to address real-world problems. In five cases, in-class group work was done, and in three cases, assignments or active learning were mentioned.
The Methods of Assessing Critical Thinking document [62] revealed that exams and quizzes were the dominant assessment methods. Term papers and writing assignments were also used by some instructors, although it may be the case that other instructors also use writing but did not specifically state so. Informal questioning and listening to provide informal feedback was also cited by a few instructors. Only one course specifically cited the use of instruments specifically designed to measure critical thinking, though one cited a critical thinking rubric.
The subcommittee concluded that the literature on critical thinking, as well as the results of their informal survey of courses at SHSU, suggest that the first step to teaching critical thinking is to define it as specifically as possible. The definition will help guide the process of teaching it. In short, the literature indicated that critical thinking concepts must be specifically referenced when teaching. Finally, the use of group work/active learning significantly enhances the critical thinking ability of students, which is undoubtedly why it was referenced by some of the instructors. The findings and recommendations of the critical thinking subcommittee will be highlighted as a continued focus of SHSU’s assessment efforts for the 2018-2019 academic year.
Empirical and Quantitative Reasoning Subcommittee Report [57]
The subcommittee for empirical and quantitative reasoning recommended conducting an item analysis of both CAT and TACTS data in order to better understand how each question aligned with different components of empirical and quantitative reasoning. Examining data from the CAT, the subcommittee concluded that SHSU students were scoring lower on almost all measures of empirical and quantitative reasoning than the national norm scores. The committee recommended exploring these data further to determine whether the lower scores were a result of students not obtaining enough knowledge of these skills at SHSU or if students within comparison groups could have significant demographic differences that could explain why SHSU students were performing at a lower rate. The subcommittee also recommended breaking down all empirical and quantitative data by the students’ college, department, and/or major. Such breakdown will aid in addressing problems that may pertain to specific colleges and majors.
The subcommittee also discussed major-specific courses that cover empirical and quantitative reasoning. For example, in the College of Business Administration, every student is required to take BANA 3363: Intermediate Business Analysis. Similarly, every student in the College of Criminal Justice is required to take CRIJ 3378: Intro to Methods of Research. The subcommittee recommended that similar courses be found within all colleges at SHSU. In the future, such courses could provide additional data regarding student attainment of these outcomes as they approach graduation.
The subcommittee also recommended comparing student scores on the CAT and/or TACTS for students enrolled in courses in Mathematics and Life and Physical Science Component Areas. Pre- and post-effect analyses could also be compared by student grade-level as well, with the expectation that senior students should be scoring higher on empirical and quantitative reasoning than lower division students. These comparisons could yield data that captures practice and application of empirical and quantitative skills in the classroom.
The subcommittee also noticed a trend among the CAT scoring for the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 assessment cycles. The CAT data indicate that SHSU students have consistently scored the lowest on questions in which the following skills were being assessed: “identify additional information needed to evaluate a hypothesis” and “explain how changes in a real-world problem might affect the solution.” As a result, the subcommittee recommended further investigation of these areas. This will be a focus of the Core Curriculum Subcommittee for the 2018-2019 academic year.
Finally, the subcommittee concluded that although there was not a considerable difference in SHSU student NSSE responses when compared to peer groups designated by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the NSSE data did indicate that SHSU students do not feel that they are utilizing empirical and quantitative skills. The subcommittee concluded that this might be due to the phrasing of the question, which asked students to reflect on their experiences “during the current school year…”; however, the subcommittee acknowledged that this was something that may require further review.
Personal Responsibility Subcommittee Report [58]
The subcommittee for social responsibility examined data from the current measures of personal responsibility being used by SHSU to evaluate that core learning outcome. The subcommittee expressed concern that too often social responsibility and personal responsibility were being linked within the curriculum, with the assumption that if social responsibility was being covered in course content, then personal responsibility was being covered as well. The subcommittee concluded that the data from the various sections of Contemporary Moral Issues were useful; however, it was limited in timeframe and scope. To complement existing data, the subcommittee recommended developing a list of learning experiences in specific courses and co-curricular activities designed to increase student personal responsibility. These specific courses or activities could then be targeted for assessment.
Social Responsibility Subcommittee Report [59]
The subcommittee for social responsibility examined data from the current measures of social responsibility being used by SHSU to evaluate that core learning outcome: pre- and post-tests administered in multiple sections of the POLS 2305 (American Government) and POLS 2306 (Texas Government) courses and approximately eleven questions taken from the NSSE survey given to both first-year students and seniors. The results of the pre- and post-tests administered within American Government and Texas Government helped to determine if increases in student “intercultural competence, knowledge of civic responsibility, and the ability to engage effectively in regional, national, and global communities” were achieved. Scores from the NSSE were compared to those from a sampling of other NSSE-participating institutions from institutional comparison groups and to NSSE-participating Texas institutions. The results of these comparisons provided a sense of how SHSU students compared to peers. Given the large number of students making up the first-year and senior student samples, SHSU was able to gain a sense of how student exposure to the culture of SHSU may or may not have affected various aspects of social responsibility and engagement.
The subcommittee recommended that additional data from different sources would be useful in helping evaluate student social responsibility skills. They recommended that, as part of a review of core curriculum course syllabi, courses with a strong social responsibility component could be identified for further assessment. Additionally, the University could reach out to faculty, department chairs, and/or associate deans associated with core courses in which social responsibility was listed as a skill outcome to be addressed to determine what formal assessment procedures are being conducted and if the assessment results could be included as part of University-wide core learning outcome assessment efforts. The subcommittee further recommended that all students should be exposed to a course that included personal and professional ethics and that further efforts could be made to develop student social responsibility skills within non-academic settings as well.
The subcommittee concluded that a review of data from the courses American Government and Texas Government revealed that students were increasing their awareness of social responsibility and engagement within those courses. On the other hand, a review of NSSE data was not as promising. Although the subcommittee observed impressive gains in some areas, they were surprised to note that there were also several areas in which no significant gains are taking place, as well as a few in which the seniors scored lower than the first-year students. Regarding comparison to our peer institutions, the subcommittee observed that first-year students at SHSU scored close to the peer averages and exceed them in several areas. However, SHSU seniors fared worse.
An analysis of these data provided a strong indication to the subcommittee that SHSU should take further steps to address social responsibility with its students, particularly as they approach graduation. Therefore, social responsibility will be a focus of the Core Curriculum Assessment Committee’s efforts for the 2018-2019 academic year. Additional assessment measures will be identified, and greater efforts will be implemented to promote social responsibility throughout the curriculum and co-curricular programming.
Efforts to Improve Student Written Communication Skills
Improving student written communication skills remains a point of focus for faculty, staff, and administrators at SHSU. Reviews of SHSU written communication data have indicated several areas in which students could improve their written communication skills. Furthermore, student responses to the NSSE indicated that SHSU students reported writing less than peers at similar institutions. Therefore, SHSU has taken several steps to improve student written communication skills.
SHSU has long had a program to incorporate writing-enhanced courses into degree plans; however, the program was recently re-evaluated, and questions were raised as to whether or not it should continue. With the knowledge from the written communication core data assessments continuing to demonstrate areas for needed improvements, SHSU academic leadership opted for a program restructuring rather than dissolution. Rather than being centralized within academic affairs, each academic college was empowered to develop local policies for writing enhanced courses. As part of these efforts, each college will be required to create regular reports in which they will detail their college-level writing enhanced policies, describe how those policies are implemented and what oversight is in place to ensure compliance and effectiveness, describe how the college is assessing student writing, identify strengths and weaknesses in student written communication skills, and detail a plan for improving student writing in the college. It is expected that the colleges will make use of written communication data gathered through core curriculum assessment efforts, along with any locally collected data, to help examine the written communication performance of their students and to develop further actions for improvement. The first college reports are expected to be submitted during the 2018-2019 academic year.
Critical Thinking Course Content Alignment and Assessment Redesign
In reviewing longitudinal data gathered through the TACTS test, the Philosophy Program, in conjunction with the Director of Assessment, determined that although students consistently made statistically significant gains in pre- to post-test performance, the size of these gains had declined over time. Several steps were taken by the Philosophy Program in order to address these identified issues.
First, the program has extensively revised the TACTS assessment instrument used to evaluate student critical thinking skills within PHIL 2303: Critical Thinking. Prior to the 2017-2018 academic year, the program used the original version of the TACTS instrument, which presented students with questions and concepts beyond those covered in PHIL 2303. In order to improve the quality and usefulness of data being collected, a revised version of the TACTS was developed by faculty teaching PHIL 2303. This revised version focused only on the concepts being taught within that course. While the original TACTS instrument provided necessary data, it is expected that the revised instrument will yield more accurate data regarding student critical thinking skills and abilities within that course and will allow the program and University to set consistent benchmarks for student success.
Second, the decline in student pre- to post-test performance prompted the Philosophy Program to examine the curriculum and content of each of the sections of PHIL 2303. Over time, the program has expanded the number of sections of PHIL 2303 being taught, as well as the number of faculty teaching the course. This examination revealed that some of the newer faculty members were not covering all of the expected content areas and outcomes for the course. Further investigation revealed that curriculum expectations and requirements had not been adequately explained to some of the newer faculty teaching the course. In response, the program has corrected cases of misinformation and has taken steps to ensure that in the future all faculty members are given clear expectations regarding required course/program outcomes. These steps will help ensure that all sections of PHIL 2303 are covering all expected outcomes. It is expected that these changes should improve student learning within those course sections and lead to further increases in student critical thinking skills.
Third, the Philosophy Program has partnered with the OAPA to develop and implement an additional assessment of student metacognition and intellectual humility. This new instrument has been incorporated into the revised TACTS test and is administered to students in a pre- to post-test approach each semester. Metacognition and intellectual humility are both important facets of critical thinking requiring additional assessment. The data from these additional assessments will provide valuable insight into these student skills and will serve as potential models of assessment for other core curriculum outcomes.
Core Curriculum Core Course Syllabi Review
An examination of student performance on several core curriculum outcomes indicated that efforts could be made to strengthen student performance. As part of larger efforts to improve student core curriculum knowledge, it was determined that a review was needed of existing core curriculum courses to help ensure that these courses were adequately covering necessary core curriculum concepts. During the spring 2018 semester, members of the SHSU Core Curriculum Assessment Committee conducted a review of a sample of course syllabi from core curriculum courses taught during the fall 2017 semester. A total of 151 course syllabi were reviewed by the committee, which represented approximately 25% of the core curriculum courses offered in the fall of 2017. A stratified random sampling process was used to select the courses for review to ensure that a representative number of courses from all nine SHSU core curriculum component areas were included.
Reviewers were asked to determine whether required core learning outcomes were evidenced within the syllabi for those courses using the following scale: “No Emphasis Present,” “Minimal Emphasis Present,” or “Major Emphasis Present.” It should be noted that if an outcome was not present within the syllabus of a course it did not necessarily mean that the outcome was not being addressed within the course, only that evidence was not present within the course syllabus.
The review revealed several areas in which core curriculum outcomes were not present within course syllabi. The data from this review were distributed to leadership in the Division of Academic Affairs and to the Council of Academic Deans for review and action [63]. Individual college-level reports were also provided to the appropriate deans and associate deans of each college. It was determined that in the fall 2018 semester the Director of Assessment and the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs will hold meetings with the leadership of each college to discuss their college-level results and to develop strategies for improving the articulation of necessary core curriculum learning outcomes within course material, and, when necessary, to develop strategies for better incorporation and assessment of these outcomes within the course curriculum. A follow-up review of core curriculum course syllabi will be conducted in the fall of 2019 to determine what improvements have been made.
2016 National Survey of Student Engagement Executive Summary Report [64]
Following the administration of the NSSE in the spring of 2016, the President of SHSU formed an ad hoc committee to review SHSU’s data and to develop recommendations for improving student learning and experiences at SHSU. Although most of the findings related to SHSU’s core curriculum efforts, the University realized additional gains from the use of this instrument, above and beyond its core curriculum assessment intentions. A summary of these recommendations are provided.
The committee recommended that SHSU work to promote greater student engagement in High Impact Practices (HIPs) across the institution. HIPs include First-year Seminars/Experiences, Common Intellectual Experiences, Learning Communities, Writing-intensive Courses, Collaborative Assignments and Projects, Undergraduate Research, Diversity/Global Learning, Service Learning/Community-based Learning, Internships, and Capstone Courses and Projects. The committee noted that all students can benefit from HIPs, but that SHSU students could gain greater benefit if they were engaged early in HIPs during their first year at SHSU. The impact of HIPs on promoting student learning is well researched and documented in higher education. By promoting the use of HIPs within 1000- and 2000-level core curriculum courses, it is expected that student learning and attainment of the core learning outcomes being taught within those courses will improve.
The committee also recommended that SHSU should investigate opportunities to improve student civic engagement and social responsibility skills by seeking opportunities, both within the curriculum and within co-curricular activities, to better inform students about campus, local, state, national, and global issues. Additionally, the committee recommended that the University should take steps to encourage all students to discuss these issues with others, to work to raise awareness of these issues, and to work with others to respond to them within curricular and co-curricular environments.
Furthermore, the committee recommended that SHSU consider incorporating additional opportunities within curricular and co-curricular environments to engage students in global learning. Such examples could include expanded study abroad and international internships; however, the committee recommended that the University explore other means for bringing global and international topics and experiences to the local campus. Colleges and departments could be encouraged to examine where additional global learning topics could be infused within the curriculum and existing student programming within both the Divisions of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs.
The committee noted that first-year students indicated being less engaged with quantitative reasoning activities than students from other institutions. Examining the NSSE questions relating to the quantitative reasoning indicator, SHSU first-year students reported less frequency in (a) reaching conclusions based on analysis of numerical information, (b) using numerical information to examine real world issues, and (c) evaluating what others have concluded from numerical information. The committee recommended further examinations of direct data related to student quantitative reasoning skills in order to identify specific areas in need of improvement.
Finally, the committee also noted that senior students reported being less engaged with collaborative learning than students at other institutions. Examining the NSSE questions relating to the collaborative learning indicator, SHSU senior students reported less frequency in (a) working with other students on course projects or assignments and (b) preparing for exams by discussing or working through course materials with other students. As with quantitative reasoning, the committee recommended further examination of data related to teamwork skills and consideration of targeted initiatives to address any identified areas for improvement.