The case studies below provide examples of the different types of actions academic programs might implement based on the findings from PLO assessment. They depict assessment of PLOs at different levels (UG/GR) and are meant to represent the variability in scale and resources that learning-centered actions might require.
Please note that these case studies may not provide a response to every prompt that appears in the assessment form in HelioCampus. For example, some case studies might not address the involvement of leadership and faculty in the action's development, and in other case studies the Findings statement might not address past results (both of which are specifically prompted in the HelioCampus assessment form).
Please note that these case studies may not provide a response to every prompt that appears in the assessment form in HelioCampus. For example, some case studies might not address the involvement of leadership and faculty in the action's development, and in other case studies the Findings statement might not address past results (both of which are specifically prompted in the HelioCampus assessment form).
Case Study #1 - Action Type: Additional time or emphasis on content / Additional activity
Program Learning Outcome: Project Management Skills
Measured via: Course project - Capstone Implementation Plan
Target: 80% of student artifacts will receive Meets Expectations or Exceeds Expectations on the implementation plan rubric.
Findings: Target Met
- In Course 406, 98% of artifacts received Meets or Exceeds Expectations. The average score was 84/100, which aligns with the standard for the Meets Expectations category. This result is slightly lower from the previous year’s average of 89/100.
- Although the slight dip in the overall average score may be negligible and not indicative of a downward trend, the faculty are also considering feedback received from peer reviewers during the program's most recent accreditation visit. External reviewers observed that students were in some cases struggling to define project management techniques and to describe how they are utilized. Therefore, the action described below was developed with both assessment findings and accreditation feedback in mind.
- Instructors teaching Course 405, which most students take before Course 406, will introduce a project management exercise throughout the course. Phase I of the exercise will require small student groups to select and do a deep dive on a technique, tool, or framework and present the information to the rest of the class. As the semester progresses, each small group will be required to select one project management tool and integrate it into their assigned case study portion of the project (Phase II).
At the Fall 2024 meeting, instructors talked about there being room for improvement in how well students integrate project management tools into their implementation plans. Thus, the decision was made to add the project management exercise in the course taken right before the capstone.
Case Study #2 - Action Type: New Course
Program Learning Outcome: Knowledge Competency
Measured via: Final Exam in Course 412
Target: Students will score an 85% or higher on each content area grouping. Items on the final exam are grouped by key content area: Content Area A, B, C, D.
Findings: Target Partially Met
- The aggregate score on Content Area C was 72% which is significantly under the target. The target was met for all other content areas with aggregate scores as follows: Content Area A - 88%, B - 86%, and D - 89%. Because the target was met for just 3 of the 4 Content Areas, the overall target was only partially met.
- Based on these results, an audit of the current doctoral curriculum was completed and faculty discovered Content Area C is covered only briefly in a first semester course prior to Course 412. Two decisions were made: (1) to increase time spent on Content Area C in the first semester course, and (2) to develop a new required course focusing in large part on the application of Content Area C. Students will take the new course toward the end of their required coursework, prior to submitting their doctoral proposal. The goal will be to reinforce principles taught during the foundational first semester course(s), providing students with more opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge on this content area.
Case Study #3 - Action Type: Additional activities or assignments
Program Learning Outcome: Oral Communication
Measured via: Certificate Capstone Presentation
Target: 3 out of 4 on each rubric category
Findings: Target Met
- The target was met in all categories: Clarity & Organization (3.0 out of 4), Language (3.7 out of 4), and Responsiveness to audience (3.4 out of 4).
- Though the target was met on each rubric category, instructors of Course 365 will develop a new assignment focusing on the Clarity and Organization aspect of oral communication (which received the lowest score). Starting Fall 2024, students enrolled in this course (usually 10-15 students) will be asked to schedule an appointment with staff the University Writing Center to practice and receive feedback on their mini project presentation (a 3-minute presentation that precedes the capstone presentation). We have already discussed this new requirement with the UWC. Students will be provided a form to have signed by the Writing Center staff at their appointment, which will then be turned in to the instructor for credit. If students are unable to get a UWC appointment for whatever reason, the instructor will work with students individually to determine an alternate venue for receiving feedback on their mini presentation.
- We believe the experience of practicing their presentation and engaging in a reflection exercise will help improve our certificate students’ oral communication skills.
Case Study #4 - Action Type: Redesign of activities or assignments
Program Learning Outcome: Global Social Competence
Measured via: Final case study assignment
Target: 80% of students will receive a score of 85/100 or higher.
Findings: Target Met
- The target was met as 82% of students received an 85/100 or higher on their final case study assignment. In the case study, students must explain how they would approach and respond to the issue in the case study which describes a scenario with a global business partner. However, instructors noted that students struggled to recognize some cues in the case studies that would help students design their approach to addressing or resolving the issue described in the scenario.
- Instructors will review and update the already-existing mini case studies in two lower-level courses to ensure they include a variety of different cues that will guide students in their approaches to different scenarios. These cues are directly tied to different concepts in the course as well as different scenarios they may experience with business partners.
Case Study #5 - Action Type: Course Redesign
Program Learning Outcome: Research Methodology
Measured via: PhD Prelim Exam
Target: All students will receive a 90% or higher on the Research Methodology section of the prelim examination.
Findings: Target Not Met
- The target was not met as 86% of students received a 90% or higher on Research Methodology section of the prelim examination. After reviewing the results in more detail, faculty found that students struggled most in their responses to prompts about mixed method research. These results are on par with results from previous years. Specifically, for the last 3 years students have earned fewer points on items related to mixed methods than on other methodology items on the prelim exam.
- Program faculty and department leadership have decided that the program’s research methodology course needs to be redesigned. It was determined that mixed methods should be covered more and in greater detail, including the addition of a mixed methodology assignment. The course redesign process will start in Spring 2025.
Case Study #6 - Action Type: Curriculum Redesign/Resequencing
Program Learning Outcome: Application of Knowledge
Measured via: Senior capstone paper
Target: Overall average of 3 (out of 5) in the Application rubric category.
Findings: Target Not Met
- The aggregate score in the Application category was 2.1 out of 5. Scores on this category have been lower than desired for a few cycles now (2.3, 2.4, 1.9), indicating our previous efforts to improve achievement of this PLO haven’t been successful.
- In response to the findings, faculty reviewed course sequences and timing of when courses were taken. Currently students can choose when to take some of the intermediate/advanced courses. We have started working with the Center for Teaching Excellence to design a curriculum that is a bit more lockstep, wherein, for example, students are expected to take Course A one semester and Course B in the next semester for immediate reinforcement. We expect this work will be completed by Spring 2026.
Case Study #7 - Action Type: Additional activities or assignments
Program Learning Outcome: Collaboration
Measured via: Interdisciplinary Group Project – Group members take turns scheduling, leading, and summarizing group sessions and next steps. Each member submits this documentation along with the final project and is evaluated individually on the Collaboration rubric item.
Target: Average of 4 out of 5 on the Collaboration rubric item.
Findings: Target Met
- The class averaged 4.3 out of 5 on the Collaboration rubric item.
- Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the program, it is important that students have ample opportunities to work with students and faculty from different departments. Although the target was met, the IDP committee recognizes this key PLO can be strengthened further and has decided to implement additional opportunities for IDP groupwork. In Courses 625 and 630, new group projects/assignments will be introduced. Additionally, the IDP committee has decided to raise the target from 4 to 4.5 for the IDP Group Project measure, as we believe that student’s collaboration skills will improve with the additional group project assignments.
Case Study #8 - Action Type: Redesign of activities or assignments
Program Learning Outcome: Experimental Design
Measured via: Research Project
Target: On average, students will receive an 85/100 on the experimental design component of their final research project.
Findings: Target Met
- The average score on the experimental design component was 89/100.
- In response to the assessment results last year, instructors implemented two in-class group discussions in both sections of Course 635. In their discussion groups, students were broadly instructed to discuss different aspects of experimental design they are utilizing in their own research or research on which they are assisting faculty. Instructors believe these discussions have been beneficial to students, particularly in instances where their peers are utilizing different methods. Instructors have noted that they intend continue these discussion groups and believe students could further benefit from more structured conversations with their peers.
- Therefore, although the target was met during this assessment cycle, the course instructors are currently working together to develop some specific questions for the students to answer and discuss in their groups. The facilitation of more structured discussions may help to further enhance this learning outcome.
Case Study #9 - Action Type: Other
Program Learning Outcome: Written Communication
Measured via: Literature review assignment
Target: Average of 2.5 out of 4 on each related rubric category
Findings: Target Partially Met
- The target was met on all rubric categories except Logic & Organization. The average score on this category was 2.2 out of 4. While this is a slight improvement from last year, an average of 2.2 is below target. Results on the other categories were as follows: Content Development (3.5), Syntax & Mechanics (2.9), Sources & Evidence (3.2).
- We will implement a feedback structure in Course 117 starting this Fall semester. Students in the program are encouraged to take this course in their first or second semester and are expected to write at least 3 papers, so it was collectively decided this may be the most logical place to implement extra support for this PLO (written communication). All 4 sections of the course have GAs who have previously excelled in the course. Instructors have already begun working with GAs to provide more comprehensive feedback on student papers, with particular emphasis on logic and organization.
Case Study #10 - Example of “No Action” due to new or low-enrolled program
Program Learning Outcome: Critical Thinking
Measured via: Reflection paper assignment
Target: 90% of students will earn at least 8 out of 10 points on the 'Personal Perspective & Position' section of the reflection paper.
Findings: No data collected/reported
- Currently, there are only 12 students enrolled in our undergraduate program, 6 of which we were able to collect assessment data from in AY2023-24 through the Final Reflection paper in the course. The outcome has not been assessed in two years; thus, we have determined there is not enough current data to report findings this cycle. We will be aggregating data from this assessment cycle and next year’s assessment cycle to report findings.
- Rationale/Explanation (IMPORTANT): There were fewer students enrolled this year in the course where this assessment takes place, and thus there is less data to report. We do not expect this trend to continue, but regardless we intend to aggregate this year’s data with the data from next year for reporting purposes. Additionally, moving forward we will be assessing this learning outcome at least every other year.