understand the poor
performance of students on
“breadth of knowledge” in
SLO2 in the 2007-08 year.implemented in Spring
2009.“satisfactory” and only 1%
as “unsatisfactory”.identified by assessment of
SLO2 (see below); however
we have not yet identified
the changes we need to
make to enhance
performance on SLO 2 and
continue to seek ways to do
this (see below).
SLO2: A graduate student
should be able to
independently answer
questions regarding their
research field. Link to
UNCW Learning Goal:
critical thinking (information
literacy and critical thinking)
and thoughtful expression
(thoughtful expression).
Oral preliminary exam is
successfully completed. The
student’s committee
evaluates performance in
the exam with a form.Each student in the program
is assessed by each of
his/her committee
members. Data on the
student’s ability to
articulate information, on
the depth and breadth of
their knowledge, and
professional poise are
collected.During the 2008-09 year, 14
students completed the oral
preliminary exam. Faculty
determined that our
students are still not
performing as well as we
would like them to on this
student learning outcome.
Only a little more than half
the students were assessed
as performing well in ability
to articulate (57%), breadth
(57%) and depth (59%) or
knowledge, while 72% of
students demonstrated
professional poise. It is
useful to point out that
none of the students was
assessed as performing
“poorly”, but rather that
there were more students in
the “adequate” category
than we would like to see.Performance at the oral
examination was identified
earlier as an area of concern
for our Master’s students
during the 2007- 08
assessment period. We
began to assess the ability
of our students to speak and
answer questions in public
through another measure,
SLO1b (see above) this year,
and the students were
assessed as performing well
on that SLO; therefore oral
communication itself does
not seem to be the problem
but rather knowledge and
understanding of material,
and the ability to convey
this information, in the
setting of the oral
examination. The faculty
discussed the results of
assessment to date at the
2009 retreat and decided
that student performance
on this SLO is still of
concern. The faculty passed
a motion at the retreat to
refer this SLO and
assessment tool back to the