Skip to Content

Office of Institutional Research, Assessment, and Analytics

Results Instructions


The results section presents the findings from the data that have been collected and analyzed in a simple, easily understood format.  The result section should accurately depict the findings relevant to each learning outcome at the program level.

Include the following:

  1. Number of students included in the data collected for each measure.
  2. Data relating to aggregate performance.
  3. Faculty interpretation of the data and results.
  4. Whether criteria were met and whether the learning outcome was achieved.
  5. Brief description of common strengths and weaknesses among students with regard to each measure and learning outcome.


Guidelines:

  • Results must be presented for each measured learning outcome, using tables/figures where appropriate.

  • Because a goal of assessment is to pinpoint weaknesses in the program and suggest ways to improve it, simply indicating whether or not the criteria were met is not particularly helpful. Be sure to discuss the group’s overall performance in terms of their strengths and weaknesses (even if the criteria were met).

  • If a distance program is also delivered traditionally, the program director should annually submit one plan with the assessment results disaggregated to compare the quality of student work in the distance program to the quality of work in the traditional program.


Examples:

Minimum acceptable performance level is 80% of students scoring at or above satisfactory level, using the rubric established for the assignment in ELCT 350.

  1. Students use proper technique to solve problem. Outcome was met with 93% (39 out of 42 students) satisfactory or above.
  2. Students pick appropriate engineering tool to implement solution. Outcome not met with 43% (18 out of 42 students) satisfactory or above.
  3. Students demonstrate skills to solve problem. Outcome was met with 100% satisfactory or above.

Overall, students’ strengths included: Using the proper technique and discussing the solution in layman’s terms. As a group, students struggled with correctly detecting and analyzing the problem and selecting the appropriate engineering tool. Outcome was not met due to item 2 above.

Five students were tested with the Qualifying Exam in this area. The average score was 58, with a minimum of 25 and a maximum of 93. As the criterion for an acceptable level of performance was set at attaining an average of 80 or higher, the learning outcome was not achieved. Students excelled in their ability to analyze and interpret research articles. Students’ ability to write coherent, organized, well-developed papers was substandard.

In reviewing papers and oral presentations by seniors in our program, it was determined that our students are not performing at the established acceptable level of excellence when discussing issues and ideas involving literary study. Specifically, the criterion was not met as 74% (31 of 42 students), not 90%, of students earned a score of 4 out of 5 when evaluated with the rubric for assignment 1 and 2.

Exit Interview: 87.5% of students (105 out of 120 students) responding to the exit interview indicated that they were satisfied with the way they there able to develop their research and presentation skills in the course of their anthropology curriculum.

Overall and in each performance area, 80% of (72 out of 90) engineering students scored above the national average on the MFT exam in Spring 2007.