Narrative (Continued)

Excerpts from Academic Program Review Reports for the Department of Agricultural Economics

From Self Study.   “Strategic Action Plan”:  The Department will implement the following related to the strategic plan over the next 2 years:

Discovery: Research. Over the next 10 years, the Department will work to increase faculty publications, graduate student participation in peer-reviewed articles, external funding, departmental exposure through electronic media, and professional development opportunities for faculty and staff. The Department will also work to strengthen research centers. Specific actions to be taken over the next 2 years include: 

1. Encourage faculty to publish research results in peer-reviewed outlets through active discussion at faculty meetings. This can help to establish a stronger culture of publishing.

2. Devote departmental resources to enhancing the departmental website. The enhanced website will include more information about research programs, faculty, teaching programs, and extension programs.

Learning 1: Undergraduate Education.  Over the next 10 years, the Department will work to reinforce student advisement and mentoring by faculty, encourage participation in internships and other professional development activities, incorporate professional development activities into courses, encourage community-service learning, encourage study abroad and exchange programs, revise course prerequisites as necessary to ensure competency, review and update curricula as needed, administer a senior assessment examination, monitor and assess faculty teaching loads, work to ensure an appropriate balance of faculty teaching FTEs with student enrollment, work to enhance donations to the program, and encourage faculty participation in teaching improvement workshops and seminars. The extent to which each of these can be addressed will depend to a great extent upon whether teaching FTEs can be secured and whether undergraduate enrollment remains at its current level of >300 students. Specific actions to be taken over the next 2 years include:

1. Work with the Dean of the College of Agriculture to secure additional teaching resources that will at the very least replace teaching FTEs lost to recent retirements.

2. The Department Head will continue visiting undergraduate classes and, in addition to discussing graduate study opportunities, encourage students to enroll in study abroad programs available throughout the campus.

From Internal Panel Review:  Recommendations:  In the Memorandum of Agreement from Previous Program Review (2002), “Strengthen Ties With Related Programs” was documented as Recommendation 2 with the following action plan: “The Department Head and the faculty will continue efforts to visit those departments on campus for which the Department could cooperate in increasing the size and strength of its graduate program (i.e., Economics Department, Sociology Department, etc.) Rural Sociology was incorporated into the Department on July 1, 2002.” Unlike 12 other recommendations, Recommendation 2 and its action plan were not clearly addressed. The following recommendations are related to “Strengthen Ties With Related Programs” and organized with respect to the four strategic focusses of LSU Flagship 2020: Discovery, Leaning, Diversity, and Engagement. We suggest that in the future Self Study Report, all the 12 recommendations be specifically addressed. In order for the recommendations to be effectively executed, we strongly recommend that faculty (including minorities) be hired to fill vacancies.

Discovery:  We applaud the establishment and continuous development of Center for Natural Resource and Environmental Policy (CNREP) and the Louisiana Center for Rural Initiatives (LCRI). As more emphasis is placed on securing external funding to support research, it is recommended that the two centers be the major drivers for creating new resources for advancing the department’s journey of discovery.

Recommendation 1: Strengthen ties with related programs to secure external funding to support research. March 15, 2012 Agricultural Economics

Recommendation 2: Increase faculty and graduate student participation in Recommendation 1 and publish in peer-reviewed articles.

Recommendation 3: Increase faculty and graduate student participation in effectively presenting results derived from Recommendation 2 to increase opportunities for more external funding. Consider CNREP as an example. The track record of CNREP, as presented at its website3, is impressive. Examining carefully the three national conferences CNREP organized, one can see the steadily increased number of sponsors and participation of faculty and students. The 2010 conference on Socioeconomic Research in Coastal Systems covered a wide range of vital topics in coastal systems. In terms of strengthening ties with related programs, it makes sense for CNREP to partner with School of the Coast and Environment4 and Coastal Sustainability Studio5 to secure external funding to support research, increase faculty and graduate student participation in publishing top-tiered papers, and effectively presenting the concerted effort in addressing coastal problems to increase more funding opportunities.

Learning: Job placement is a significant challenge for both graduate and undergraduate students. The external reviewer also recommends that placements for graduates from all programs be tracked and reviewed periodically.

Recommendation 4: Enhance the quality of the undergraduate program by adhering to a grade of C or better in all core courses and striving to maintain the required number of FTEs to cover the courses offered in the department.

Recommendation 5: For PhD students, consider establishing a research paper requirement and a grant proposal preparation requirement. Facilitate recruitment and entry into the graduate program by updating department website to showcase current research activities and by offering an introduction to ongoing research activates to the incoming class of students.

From External Review Report:  Major Recommendations

The Department must hire female faculty members to improve its diversity. It should also work hard to hire black faculty members too. There are many well-qualified females in distinguished PhD programs these days in most sub disciplines within agricultural economics, but hiring black faculty members will be more difficult.

The Department should track placements for graduates from all of their programs and review those placements periodically.

The Department should consider establishing a research paper requirement for Ph.D. students. This endeavor can not only gauge the student’s research prowess, but also usually reduces the time to degree for Ph.D. students.

From External Review Report:  Assessment and Curriculum Changes:  The Department should consider establishing of a set of classes that would constitute an agricultural economics core at the Ph.D. level if graduate student numbers increase (which is one of their goals). This will focus the Department’s advanced teaching efforts into a few sub disciplines and prepare graduate students for research in areas where LSU faculty members have expertise. The Department does a great job in teaching microeconomics and business principles.  However, it should consider requiring an additional course in macroeconomics. This is an important topic for agriculture and other businesses that is under represented in the current curriculum.

From Memorandum of Agreement:

Recommendation 2: The department should increase faculty and graduate student participation in Recommendation 1 and continue to publish in peer-reviewed articles.

 

Action Items

 

Expand graduate student participation in all facets of the CNREP 2013 conference.

 

Provide opportunities for them to interact with professionals in formal and informal research groups that have boundaries outside of the Department.

 

Require graduate student participation in all seminars, and direct a standing Departmental committee to develop guidelines for how this will be implemented.

 

Require all graduate students to fulfill program seminar requirements, and task the Graduate Committee with developing a way to implement the requirement.

 

Continue to promote, as per PS-36 (LSU Baton Rouge), PS-42 (LSU AgCenter), and required annual performance evaluations, the dissemination of research results in peer-reviewed articles.

 

Timeline for Completion: Ongoing, with the first short-run target being the March 2013 CNREP conference. Develop guidelines for graduate student seminar participation by the end of Spring, 2013.

 

Recommendation 3: The department should increase faculty and graduate student

participation in effectively presenting results derived from Recommendation 2 to increase

opportunities for more external funding.

 

Action Items

 

Maintain the Department's acceptable target (as per LSU Degree Program Planning Assessment) of near 100 percent formal graduate student participation in professional meetings.

 

Work towards the ideal target (as per LSU Degree Program Planning Assessment) of at least one published manuscript for each finishing graduate student (versus the current graduate student publication rate of 37 percent) by encouraging a "3-papers" approach to Ph.D. dissertations and by promoting the immediate involvement of incoming M.S. students in ongoing research projects.

 

As per PS-36 (LSU Baton Rouge) and PS-42 (LSU AgCenter), require each faculty member to disseminate the results of their work, with the nature and quantity of the dissemination meeting the acceptable professional standards (adjusted for appointment type) as held among our southern peer departments.

 

Task a standing or new departmental committee with contacting peer programs to determine the currently held acceptable professional standards, analyze the Department's performance relative to those standards, and make recommendations for future action.

 

Timeline for Completion: Implementation beginning Fall 2012 and ongoing. Goal of increasing student publication rates by 10 percent yearly. Goal of completing the standards assessment in Fall 2013, with recommendations developed for faculty consideration by Spring 2014.

The following links provide access to the four required reports of the program review process for seven of the twenty academic departments that have completed the internal program review process since it began in fall semester 2011: 

Department of Sociology: [259][260][261][262];

            Department of Agricultural Economics: [263][264][265][266];

            Department of Biological Sciences:  [267][268][269][270];

            Department of Chemistry: [271][272][273][274];

            Department of English [275][276][277][278];

            Department of Experimental Statistics [279][280][281][282];

            Department of Physics and Astronomy [283][284][285][286].

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment in Program Review

Regarding academic programs, in addressing strategic goals and associated internal operations of academic departments, it necessarily includes specific attention to the assessment of student learning outcomes in degree programs, thus adding an objective layer of evaluation to those already in place through the annualized Planning and Assessment Cycle.  The academic unit’s Self-Study Report, as noted in the Program Review Overview, must summarize information from the required learning outcomes reports of the most recent assessment cycles.  The internal panel charged with reviewing the program will study the formal processes for determining students’ achievement of program-level learning outcomes.  Additionally, the panel may seek supplementary information in the form of interviews with teaching faculty and with staff in the Office of Assessment and Evaluation to determine if action plans other than those described in the most recent Learning Outcomes Report may be indicated [258].  The following examples from the College of Business and the College of Humanities and Social Sciences exemplify the integration of learning outcomes assessment into the formal program review process.

Master of Business Administration:  This program went through program review in 2011, with the following recommendation and action plan pertaining to the assessment of student learning outcomes:

 

Recommendation 2: Improve assessment program to have more direct measures of learning in well identified student cohorts.  a. Treat the MBA program as a separate and distinct cohort.  b. Provide evidence of regular data collection, data analysis, faculty data review, faculty group determination of needed changes for improvement, implementation and reassessment of changes. c. Involve the MBA faculty in the assessment process for the MBA program.

 

Action Items: During the 2010/2011 academic year the MBA program proposed new learning goals that are consistent with learning goals encouraged by AACSB, the University, and the College:  technical competence, critical thinking, communication skills, leadership skills, professionalism, and global/diversity awareness. Focus during this reporting period has been placed on establishing direct measures for the three most important learning goals, consistent with the college-wide goals that meet the requirements of AACSB Standard 16. These three learning goals are as follows:

 

Learning Goal 1: TECHNICAL COMPETENCE: "Our graduates will demonstrate technical competence in their discipline including theoretical foundations and practical applications."

 

Learning Goal 2: CRITICAL THINKING: "Our graduates can comprehensively and thoroughly reason and explore issues, ideas, artifacts and events in order to formulate opinions, propose solutions, make decisions and draw conclusions regarding complex business issues.

 

Learning Goal 3: EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: "Our graduates can conceptualize a complex issue into a coherent written statement and oral presentation."

 

During 2010/2011 academic year, well-established direct measures (rubrics) were adopted for these learning goals and approved by the MBA faculty through ad hoc discussions. The focus during this year was to pilot these rubrics and to collect data so that the important faculty feedback loops and the continuous improvement process could be implemented correctly and also evaluated this year. The direct measures chosen include:

 

Direct Measure of TECHNICAL COMPETENCE: ETS MFT MBA Exam: As the only comprehensive national assessment for program evaluation of its kind, the ETS® Major Field Test for the MBA consists of 124 multiple-choice questions, half of which are based on short case-study scenarios. Most of the questions require knowledge of specific information drawn from marketing, management, finance and managerial accounting, or a combination of these.

 

Direct Measure of CRITICAL THINKING: Faculty evaluation of critical thinking using Critical Thinking rubric for capstone team projects (written and oral).

 

Direct Measure of EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION: Faculty evaluation of communication skills using Communication Skills rubric for capstone team projects (written and oral).

 

In order to assess the Technical Competence learning goal, the ETS MFT MBA exam was administered to all second year MBA students on February 25th, 2011, during a regularly scheduled Friday morning "Practice of Business" practicum (BADM 7010: Emerging Business Issues and Practices in a Global Economy). This course is worth one credit hour and is required each of the four semesters that the student is enrolled in the program for a total of four credit hours. Students who demonstrated absolute lack of effort (i.e., performance in the lowest 10 percentile) lost a letter grade as well.

 

Also during the Spring 2011 semester, plans were made to assess Critical Thinking and Communication Skills during the MBA capstone course. This planning actually began during Spring 2010 semester but with a change of instructors it became difficult to implement. By the end of the MBA Memorandum of Agreement [2012) Spring 2011 semester, rubrics were identified for the Critical Thinking outcome and for the Communication Skills outcome and data was collected at the end of the semester during the students capstone strategy course final semester presentations (BADM 7190: Managing Sources of Competitive Advantage).

 

This assessment process and the data collected for Technical Competency outcomes was reviewed and approved by the MBA faculty during their May 17, 2011 MBA faculty retreat. An ad hoc MBA Assurance of Learning committee was formed consisting of the Flores MBA Director and three Faculty members (Professor Ye-Sho Chen, a member of the University Review and Assessment Council, Director of Emerging Markets, and MBA Elective faculty; Associate Professor Andrew Schwarz and core MBA MIS faculty; and Visiting Assistant Professor Jared Soileau, Accounting Faculty and Flores MBA alumni). During Summer 2011 term, this committee read the capstone course group project written reports (9 total) and viewed the capstone project presentation videos, and assessed the Critical Thinking outcome and the Communication Skills outcomes. (Note: Nine group project written reports were collected from the instructor of one full-time MBA capstone section. The instructor from the other course section was not very responsive to the request to collect project reports. Moving forward, we will be sure to collect reports from all instructors.)

 

The MBA ad hoc AoL committee was tasked with completing the evaluation of the data collected in the Capstone Course and for assisting with the final AoL report. This committee also made recommendations based on this experience. The Ad Hoc MBA AoL committee presented the results to the core MBA faculty at the MBA faculty retreat on August 17, 2011. The faculty discussed the results as well as improvements to the process. Changes were proposed and approved during this time.

Status: Accomplished; process for ongoing continuous improvement is in-place.

 

a. Assurance of Learning is now being conducted and documented for the MBA program, as a separate and distinct cohort. b. Above, we provide documentation from our University Assessment Matrix report, to provide evidence of regular data collection, data analysis, faculty data review, faculty group determination of needed changes for improvement, implementation and reassessment of changes.  c. As documented above, we have implemented MBA faculty retreats at the end of each semester (Fall, Spring, Summer) in order to involve the faculty in the MBA program assessment process.

Department of Sociology:  Below are three recommendations and action plans from the 2012 Memorandum of Agreement for this department.

 

Recommendation 14: The current assessment procedure of independently coding and rating samples of student exams/papers is time and labor intensive and captures only a small proportion of the graduating student population. Although instituting a capstone seminar for graduating seniors is not feasible at this time, an objective test of knowledge (Exit Exam) that is administered for program evaluation purposes, but not for course credit, is a manageable alternative that consistently would yield usable, representative, and objective data. The undergraduate students who attended the departmental meeting reported that they would gladly sit for an Exit Exam for self-assessment purposes. Thus, the department should consider replacing the current undergraduate assessment process with an objective test of knowledge (exit exam) that is administered for program evaluation purposes, not course credit.

 

Action Item: An exit exam is a reasonable approach to student assessment. The department's concern is that seniors do not take common classes, meaning that the exam would need to be scheduled outside of class time. The faculty also need to discuss whether the exam would be mandatory (though not count for credit), in order to attain a representative sample. To address these concerns, the undergraduate committee will meet to discuss the format and Implementation of an exit exam, with the goal of running a pilot exit exam for next year's graduating seniors.

Timeline for Completion: Fall 2014.

 

Recommendation 15: The self-assessment data reviewed suggest that undergraduate learning outcomes appear to be in decline in some areas. Moreover, just under half of all graduating seniors demonstrated less than adequate knowledge of sociological theory and research. The department should consider strengthening its undergraduate training on the following metrics:

Demonstrating knowledge of the major theoretical perspectives of sociology; and

Understanding how to conduct sociological research and analyze sociological data.

 

Action Item: The faculty are hesitant to make drastic changes in curriculum based only on two years of assessments which are inadequate to determine that the undergraduate learning outcomes are in decline. With the implementation of the exit exam (recommendation 14), we are confident that we will find our majors thoroughly knowledgeable in theory, methods, and statistics. If the exit exam in spring 2013 shows a reason for concern, the undergraduate committee will meet to discuss possible enhancements to the theory, methods, and statistics courses to improve student learning. 

Timeline for Completion: Fall 2015 and ongoing.

 

Recommendation 16: The department should consider strengthening its MA training on the following metrics:

 

Ability to analyze and synthesize the research literature

Knowledge of advanced analytical research skills

Ability to communicate in writing

 

Action Item: The faculty are hesitant to make drastic changes in curriculum based only on two years of assessments which are inadequate to determine that graduate learning outcomes are in decline. The department will continue monitoring MA students' mastery in the ability to analyze and synthesize the research literature, advanced analytical research skill, and communication in writing. If the scores do not increase, the department will convene to implement necessary measures.

Timeline for Completion: Fall 2015 and ongoing [259].

Summary

At this point in fall 2013, the necessarily varied quality of assessment formats, methods, and implementation notwithstanding, universal recognition of the significance of Comprehensive Standard 3.1.1.1 has been established in all academic degree programs. Evaluation of format and methods for learning outcomes assessment at the degree program level is a staple component of the internal program review process.  Academic departments adhere to the dates and processes of the LSU Assessment Cycle, and with faculty increasingly cognizant of the concept of assessment of student learning at the degree program level,  the URAC is now considering workshops on more complex aspects of planning, such as ensuring validity across curricula by aligning course objectives with degree program outcomes.  Administrators and faculty in all departments are aware of the requirements, and consistent intervention is occurring with the few who are not operating at a level that the URAC deems acceptable. This work is indicative of our practice of taking each program where it is, so to speak, along the spectrum of effective assessment of learning outcomes, and working with program faculty in the process of instituting an effective and valid assessment cycle [5].  Although the level of effectiveness necessarily varies at this point, with every department now working formally through the URAC and through the appropriate dean’s office to institute formats for valid ongoing assessment, we adjudge LSU to be in compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.1.  Detailed information on institutional effectiveness as it relates to student services is covered in Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1.3.

NOTE: A full list of attachments is available in the first half of the narrative.