This is a hypothetical example, for the MA in Nordic Languages.
| Steps |
Example of Each Step |
|
Step 1 - Identify one learning outcome that applies to all students in the program. |
Within the Nordic Languages Program at UIS there are several unique concentrations (Linguistics, Old Norse, etc.). The program faculty identified one learning outcome that could be applied to all students completing the program:
Students who complete a master's degree in the Nordic Languages Program at UIS will have developed unique expertise in their concentration. |
Step 2 - Determine how the program will gather information about the students' performance on the learning objective. |
The development of Nordic languages expertise by individual students was assessed by evaluating their Master's Project and Presentation. An evaluation tool, made up of four likert-type items, was used to measure the outcome.
Master's Project and Presentation Evaluation Tool
Question 1: The student's project demonstrates a thorough review of the important and current literature related to their topic area.
1
Not at all |
2
|
3
|
4
Somewhat |
5
|
6
|
7
Very Strongly |
Question 2: The student's project makes a well-informed contribution to the field of Nordic languages.
1
Not at all |
2
|
3
|
4
Somewhat |
5
|
6
|
7
Very Strongly |
Question 3: The student's presentation of the project demonstrates a sound knowledge and developed expertise in the area.
1
Not at all |
2
|
3
|
4
Somewhat |
5
|
6
|
7
Very Strongly |
Question 4: The project and presentation demonstrates that the student possesses an understanding of research methods and their role in advancing knowledge and practice in Nordic languages.
1
Not at all |
2
|
3
|
4
Somewhat |
5
|
6
|
7
Very Strongly |
|
Step 3 - Collect information or data about the students' performance on the learning objective. |
At the end of each student's master's project presentation, the committee members completed the evaluation tool, which was then collected by the Committee Chair and submitted to the Program Chair. |
Step 4 - Examine the information or evidence that has been collected. Look across students. |
At the end of the academic year, the data was compiled by program staff/faculty, and was analyzed during faculty meeting. The results were as follows:
- Question #1 (thorough review of literature) -- Avg. rating = 4.6
- Question #2 (makes well-informed contribution) -- Avg. rating = 6.3
- Question #3 (demonstrates sound knowledge and developed expertise) -- Avg. rating = 5.1
- Question #4 (understanding of role of research in field advancement) -- Avg. rating = 4.3
|
Step 5 - Reflect and discuss the implications of the evidence for the program's curriculum. |
Upon the faculty's review, results seemed to indicate that students, overall, were making well-informed contributions to the field (Question #2), but were not developing as much expertise as intended (Question #3). The faculty hypothesized that students' lower ratings in the areas of “thorough literature review” (Question #1) and “understanding of the role of research” (Question #4) may be related. They hypothesized that if students were to do more thorough literature review, and were to have a stronger understanding of the role research plays in knowledge building, they would develop more expertise in their topic area. |
Step 6 - Do Something! Implement changes to address areas in which students are not achieving learning outcomes |
As a result, the faculty identified specific improvements to be made to the research curriculum and pedagogy. They planned to reassess the programs progress on this learning outcome, using the same evaluation tool, at the end of each academic year. |
Step 7 - Summarize the findings and action taken in the annual assessment report. |
The Program Chair, along with participating faculty and staff, reported the findings, implications, and revision plans in the program's annual assessment report. |
