 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Administrative offices |
Academic Degree Program Assessment
School of Arts and Sciences
Use of Results Report
ETCMA - MS TCOM/Info Design: 2007 - 2008
1. Please list the Program Outcomes which were met and briefly discuss these.
- Write professional documents demonstrating mastery of grammar, usage, and structure
- Edit documents to remove errors and improve readability
- Identify, evaluate, and document source material
- Use design principles to produce professional quality documents
- Design information in any medium applying rhetorical and Gestalt principles
- Demonstrate mastery in research, application, and independent learning in the field of technical communication at a level that contributes to the profession
- Create work products that can be assembled into a professional portfolio
- Demonstrate proficiency with technologies that technical communicators use
The graduate faculty conducted a program assessment based on four upper level courses that map to four areas of specialization within the field of technical communication. Across the board, the graduate faculty were pleased with the results, which strongly indicated that our graduate program in information design and communication prepares students for advanced work in the field of technical communication. Review of our graduate student exit surveys also indicated that students felt they were well prepared for work in the profession. While courses exceeded assessment benchmarks in all eight program outcomes, the faculty did discuss ways in which to further develop opportunities for students to meet learning outcome #6, “Demonstrate mastery in research, application, and independent learning in the field of technical communication at a level that contributes to the profession,” as this is a key feature in any graduate program.
2. If any program outcomes were not met, please list these and discuss these in more detail.
Although not used as part of a formal assessment, the graduate faculty did discuss performance of students in the initial sequence of three required courses in the graduate program: IDC 6001, Technical Writing and Editing; IDC 6030, Foundations of Graphics; and IDC 6002, Information Design. Averaging across Fall 2007 and Spring 2008, 72 students enrolled in these three courses and 10 withdrew (duplicated headcounts included), for a 14% withdrawal rate. In addition, of the 62 students who completed the course, only 38 successfully completed the course with a grade of a B or better, for an overall successful completion rate of 52.8%. While these three courses in effect serve as “gatekeepers” for upper level courses, the faculty discussed ways in which to improve retention in this required sequence of courses.
3. Chairs:
A. Please discuss how you think that or anticipate that these results might be used.
- The graduate faculty has begun considering how applied research plays into our MS program and how faculty can encourage students to engage in scholarship, application, and independent learning in the field of technical communication at a level that contributes to the profession.
- The graduate faculty have also begun a discussion of the use of 5000-level bridge course(s) for students who may need additional preparation in writing, graphics, and information design prior to beginning the required 6000-level sequence.
- The IDC graduate admissions committee will review application packets of students who have failed to progress in the program in an attempt to diagnose which students might be best served by 5000-level bridge courses.
B. Please note below when you are tentatively planning to discuss these
results and the use of these results with your faculty and with others.
The graduate faculty met on a regular basis during the academic year to discuss program improvement. In addition to these regular meetings, the graduate faculty had extensive discussions on April 18, 2008 during the faculty retreat. Early in the fall, the graduate faculty will resume discussion of 5000-level bridge course(s) and/or other retention and progression interventions.
4. Dates of Meetings: Please list below the dates of meetings at which the use of assessment results was discussed and also briefly summarize the discussions and decisions.
- November 6, 2007: Planning for assessment of courses; revision of graduate student exit survey
- January 24, 2008: Discussion of completed course assessments; discussion of fall exit survey results; revision of course repeat policy for students scoring C or lower (limit to a total of three attempts at any required course)
- March 13, 2008 (asynchronous online discussion): Discussion of SACS statements 3.6.1 & 3.6.2; revision of program outcome #6 to better reflect alignment with SACS statement 3.6.2
- April 18, 2008: Completed discussion of course assessments; discussion of overall program assessment; discussion of low retention/completion/progression rates in required courses and possible interventions during AY 2008-2009
Academic Degree Program Assessment (A&S)
