Office of Assessment and Accreditation

Class at quarry

Student Learning

In our efforts to provide students with the best learning experience inside and outside of the classroom, St Cloud State University integrates evaluations of all services and experiences with those of our academic programs.

See results of our institutional assessments and student impacts:

Our Husky Compact

Full reports are available on the Our Husky Compact Sharepoint Site (login required).

Each year St. Cloud State focuses on one of the six dimensions of Our Husky Compact and measures student’s successful achievement of that dimension. Student work is taken from a broad range of courses and experiences, anonymized, and scored by faculty. The results are shared with faculty and staff. Feedback is used to make changes to our programs in order to better prepare our students for work and life.

AY 2016 Communicate Effectively Results

Huskies write well and speak even better!

Oral Communication 2016 Findings and Analysis

Artifacts  Lower-Division  Upper-Division  Departments  Courses 
225  158  67  12 
Oral Communication results graph
  • Students with 30 or fewer credits scored an average of 2.54 across all five dimensions of Oral Communication. They scored best in Central Message, with an average of 2.75, and worst in Delivery, at an average of 2.31.  
  • Students with 90 or more credits scored better on all dimensions, with an average of 2.97 across all dimensions. They scored best on Supporting Material, with 3.20, and worst on Delivery, with 2.78. 
  • First-year students: 81.2% achieved an average score of at least 2.01. None received an average score of 1.00 or below. 
  • Seniors, 95.5% achieved an average score of at least 2.01, and 36.4% achieved a score above 3.00.  
  • Sample demographics were close to the actual population of SCSU.  

Analysis Across Groups

There were no significant differences across groups based on race, gender, or Pell eligibility. International students tended to perform significantly worse than domestic students—international seniors performed on par with the average domestic first-year student. They did, however, have larger first-year-to-seniors gains, indicating a significantly lower starting point upon entering SCSU. 

Written Communication 2016 Findings and Analysis

Artifacts  Lower-Division  Upper-Division  Departments  Courses 
261  172  89  13  26 
Written communication results graph
  • Students with 30 or fewer credits completed scored an average of 2.31 across all five dimensions of Written Communication. They scored best in Context and Purpose for Writing, with an average of 2.69, and worst in Sources and Evidence, with an average of 1.93.  
  • Students with 90 or more credits completed scored an average of 2.94 across all dimensions of WC. They also performed best in Context and Purpose for Writing, with a score of 3.26, and worst in Sources and Evidence, with an average of 2.74.  
  • The average increase of 0.627 from first-year-to-senior is roughly one standard deviation in scoring.  
  • NOTE: the senior average of 2.9 is significantly above the average for four-year schools participating in the Multi-State Collaborative. MSC-scored artifacts also scored significantly above the average for all schools, and comparison between SCSU scores and MSC scores for the same subset of artifacts (roughly 75) indicated no bias by SCSU scorers. 
  • For WC, women constitute 48% of the sample. The WC sample slightly oversamples men. 
  • Whites constitute 72.9% of the sample.

Analysis Across Groups 

There were no significant differences by race, gender, international student status, or Pell eligibility. There is a lack of growth in written communication skills from first-years to sophomores to juniors. Added emphasis on writing in 200- and 300-level courses may lead to more consistent growth and perhaps even greater gains by senior year.  

AY 2017 Engage Results

Coming Soon.

AY 2018 Think Results

Coming Soon.

Other student learning assessments

Co-curricular Assessment

Co-Curricular Assessment Structure:

Each department will define their:

Mission
Outcomes
Outcome Alignment
Outcome Matrix
Timeline

These five elements will be considered a complete assessment plan. 

Outcomes:
Departments will either create their own student learning outcomes or they will use Our Husky Compact Dimensions. 

If a department creates its own outcomes, the outcomes must indicate what students will be able to do and how this can be measured. They must be:

1. Meaningful
2. Manageable
3. Measurable
4. Mission-driven 

If a department chooses to use Our Husky Compact in lieu of departmental outcomes, they must indicate which sub-components they intend to meet.

Outcome Alignment:

Depending on whether the department has its own or is using OHC: align events, programs, and/or services with the chosen set of outcomes.

Indicate how the event/program/service is measured for successful fulfillment of that outcome.

NOTE: It is possible that some event/program/service do not align. Focus on those that do. Choose one to measure. Or, choose a measure that can be used in multiple event/programs/services.

Timeline:

Co-curricular assessment will follow the OHC timeline. The Dimension of the Year will dictate each departments assessment focus either via the aligned department outcome or directly via

the Dimension and its subcomponents. Event, service and program measures should focus on the Dimension of the Year. 

Annual Assessment Reporting:

Annual reporting will follow University Assessment Policy. However, co-curricular assessment will use a report form that is distinct from that of academic assessment. Reporting will include one indirect and one direct assessment of student learning.

Assessment Component Target Date

All departments will identify student learning outcomes and, if necessary, create a map that aligns outcomes to OHC.

August 2018

All departments will align services, events
and activities with department learning
outcomes and/or OHC.

October 2018

All departments will create a 6-year
assessment timeline that aligns with OHC,
including event(s) and measures(s).

October 2018
Meta-assessment of plans By January 2019

All departments will conduct one round of
assessment during the Spring semester, including:

* Collecting and analyzing
results/feedback from one measure

* Making concrete plans to use the data
to improve programs or assessment of programs

Spring 2019

All departments will provide an annual
assessment report in the Assessment
Management system.

Ongoing

 

For additional information, please contact:

Liberal Education Assessment

Liberal Education Assessment is undergoing reform.

Please check back for additional information or contact:

Additional information about Liberal Education at St Cloud State University is available in the university catalog.