Date Submitted: May11, 2011
By Faculty Participants:
Dr. P. Azrak, Dr. C. Dowlah, Prof. J. Gilleaudeau, Dr. P. Manfra

SS 211 Macroeconomics studies the determination of national income, unemployment, price-levels, the impact of government spending, taxation, monetary policy, the banking system, economic growth and international trade.
Course Objectives:
Upon completion of the course, students will:
C1) Identify and comprehend traditional and current issues in Economics.
C2) Define the main areas and concepts of Macroeconomics, especially unemployment, inflation and the business cycle.
C3) Develop skills of critical analysis.
General Education Objectives :
Upon completion of the course, students will:
G1) Use information management and technology skills effectively for academic research and lifelong learning.
G2) Use analytic reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence to make informed decisions.
G3) Communicate effectively through reading, writing, listening and speaking.

Course Assessment Method:
Fifteen course sections comprised of 291 students were assessed via the following survey questionnaire:
Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements by marking the Scantron form accordingly:
A = You agree with the statement
B = You are neutral - neither agree nor disagree with the statement
C = You disagree with the statement
1) This class helped me understand and discuss economic concepts and theories.
(examples: supply and demand, opportunity costs, gains from trade)
2) This class helped me understand the importance of economic reasoning
to decision making in business, government, and households.
3) This class helped me weigh decisions on the basis of their costs and benefits.
4) This class helped me apply economics to my own life and decisions.
5) This class helped me understand the power and limits of economic reasoning.
6) This class helped me understand human behavior in economic terms.
7) This class helped me better understand issues like trade, growth, and the business cycle.
8) This class helped me better understand fiscal and monetary policies.
9) This class helped me read economic articles and literature with more sophistication.
10) This class helped me use graphical analysis to gain insight into economic issues and problems.

Summary Table of Results:
The figures quoted in respective cells correspond to the proportion of students who agreed with survey queries regarding specific Course Objectives (C1, C2, C3) and
General Educational Objectives (G1, G2,G3) as stated on a previous page.
Note that most objectives are met by more than one question, but also note that most questions meet more than one objective.
Question C1 C2 C3 G1 G2 G3
2 76.3 76.3
3 64.3 64.3
4 63.6 63.6
5 66.3 66.3
6 66.0 66.0
53.7
10
Number of sections surveyed: 15 Number of survey respondents: 291
Weighted Average of Course Objective Results: 72.0
Weighted Average of General Education Objectives Results: 62.0

Course Objectives Results:
The first course objective concerning student abilities to identify and comprehend traditional and current issues in Economics was surveyed over 4 questions with an
“agree” response ranging from 67.6 to 80.4 percent, with a 75.5 percent “agree” response average.
Similar results were attained for the second course objective that concerned itself with student abilities to define main areas and concepts of Macroeconomics. Surveyed over 3 questions, many overlapping those used for course objective one, an “agree” response range of 67.6 to 80.4 percent was attained, with a 75.2 percent “agree” response average.
The “agree” response for the third course objective, concerning students developing skills of critical analysis, was the lowest. Surveyed over 5 questions, it attained an “agree” response range of 63.6 to 76.3 percent, while averaging an “agree” response of 67.3 percent. Though a slightly weaker response, it was the tightest of the three distributions.
All told, the weighted average of all course objectives “agree” responses was a respectable 72.0 percent.
General Education Objectives Results:
The first general education objective concerning student abilities to use information management and technology skills for academic research and lifelong learning was surveyed over two questions with an “agree” response range of 53.7 to 64.3 percent, with an average “agree” response of 59.0 percent.
The second general education objective concerning student use of analytic reasoning to identify issues or problems and evaluate evidence to make informed decisions was surveyed over 5 questions, with an “agree” response range of 63.6 to 66.3 percent, with an average “agree” response of 64.9 percent. It was a stronger result than the first general education objective with a much tighter dispersion of response.
The last general education objective concerning student abilities to communicate through reading, writing, listening and speaking, was only touched on by a single survey question with a poor “agree” response of 53.7 percent.
All told, the weighted average of all general education objectives “agree” responses was a
62.0 percent, much lower than for the course objectives and a possible point of departure for forming a successful action plan.

Action Plan:
On the whole, the assessment was successful, with a majority of students responding that most objectives, both course and general educational, had been fulfilled; however, there was room for improvement. So, what can be done?
First, it would probably be useful to convene a committee, comprising full-time economics faculty, to review, and possibly revise, standards of our master syllabus.
Objectives could be clarified and honed in this way.
Second, having taken the first proposed action, full-time economics faculty might find it easier to carefully craft questions for future surveys and assessment so as to extract more specific information regarding achievement of priorities and objectives.
In essence, clearly stated objectives would facilitate greatly factor-specific assessment in the future. And presumably, better assessment would further enhance the faculty’s ability to meet stated objectives and to provide excellent student outcomes.
Third, the relatively weak “agree” response (53.7 percent) regarding the last general education objective concerning student abilities to communicate through reading, writing, listening and speaking is disappointing.
The aforementioned committee of full-time economics faculty members will be convened to investigate the issue and make more precise recommendations as to classroom implementation.
In summary, to improve student outcomes and student agreement with stated course and general education objectives, we must:

Update, improve, and clarify stated objectives

Dispense objectives to all economics faculty, emphasizing the importance of achieving objectives for student outcomes

Improve future surveys for more refined factor-assessment

Emphasize, with greater vigor and consistency, student’s exercising their communication skills, especially so, as we are such a diverse institution