Program Assessment Report
ASSESSMENT REPORTING
AY 2010-2011
Date submitted: __2/23/2011__________
Degree Program(s):
Department Chair:
Report Prepared by:
Next Self-Study due :
Minor, BA, BS, MA, Applied MA
Department:
Economics
Lydia Ortega
Phone:
4-5400
Matthew Holian
Phone:
Fall 2011
E-mail:
4-1371
Matthew.Holian@sjsu.edu
Note: Schedule is posted at: http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/programplanning/
ARCHIVAL INFORMATION
Location:
DMH 131
Person to Contact:
(Bldg/Room #)
Matthew Holian
4-1371
(Name)
(Phone)
Every five years, the Department of Economics assesses each of it's five SLO's: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4,
& 2.1, which are separate (though related) for both our undergraduate and graduate programs.
The undergraduate and graduate SLOs 1.2 were assessed in Fall 2010.
1.2 – undergraduate - core principles of macroeconomics
Macroeconomic Hallmarks



Comparative Advantage (specialization and the gains from trade; globalization)·
Macroeconomic Measures (real versus nominal calculations; components and concept of GDP;
components and concept of unemployment figures; calculation of inflation)·
Macroeconomic Models (circular flow; monetary and fiscal policy; the market for loanable funds
and interest rate determination; the demand and supply of money and price level determination)
1.2 – graduate - the economy as a social and cultural system
To be knowledgeable about the economy as a social and cultural system with complex interactions
within markets and between firms, governments, households and other organizations, at the local and
global levels
Page 1 of 27
Program Assessment Report
Initial Evidence of Student Learning:
Undergraduate programs
As part of our program review, in Fall 2005 faculty in the department assessed performance of
our Principles of Macroeconomics students. We implemented a national test, the TUSE (Test of
Understanding College Economics.) Although there were problems with the assessment
instrument, the results largely confirmed what faculty had long suspected: students were not
achieving high enough performance levels in the area of Principles of Macroeconomics.
Therefore, our assessment and curriculum committees have focused efforts over the last five
years on ways of improving performance in this area. While the department has not ignored its
other goals, SLO1.2 (Principles of Macroeconomics) is among our most important.
Graduate Programs
Assessment energies over the last few years have primarily been directed at the undergraduate
programs. The last documented discussion about graduate programs occurred in from Spring
2006; the Assessment Report submitted that year is attached at the bottom of this report.
Among the topics discussed at that time was poor performance on what were then newly
instituted comprehensive exams. Also at that time, the faculty agreed to post past
comprehensive exams to the Department website to help students prepare.
Change(s) to Curriculum or Pedagogy:
Undergraduate Programs
In Fall 2006, the Department implemented a major curricular change related to SLO1.2, in the
form of moving our Principles of Macroeconomics (Econ 1A) courses from three to four credit
units. The rationale behind this change was that students were underperforming because of a
lack of studying. By adding a fourth unit, instructors would be able to develop online
assignments, and these would count for between 20 and 25 percent of students’ grades.
At the same time, the Department began to consider making other strategic changes, in the
form of updating and rewriting our SLOs. The rationale behind these discussions was to focus
our attention on a few core areas. Reiterating the same key concepts across classes should
serve to reinforce learning. This has lead to a focus on “hallmarks” for principles courses.
Finally, the Department has continued to modify and improve its data collection processes vis-àvis assessment. Our most recent efforts are explained in the next section.
Graduate Programs
As noted in the Spring 2006 Assessment Report, the Comprehensive Exam replaced the Oral
Exam, at the same time that admissions criteria were raised. The Department followed through
with the idea of posting previous comprehensive exams online (see
http://www.sjsu.edu/economics/graduate_students/comprehensive_exams/).
Page 2 of 27
Program Assessment Report
Evidence of Student Learning after Change.
Undergraduate Programs
While we don’t have comparable data from before the curricular move to four-unit principles
courses, it is likely that the average amount of time students spent working on homework was
very low. However after the move, we are able to say with a good deal of precision how much
time our students are spending on homework. This is because the online homework programs
that instructors have implemented in their courses allow the instructor to observe, for each
student, how much time he or she has spent working on homework per week. In informal
discussion, many of the faculty estimate that the average time students spend working on
homework has increased by orders of magnitude.
To assess the undergraduate SLO 1.2, the department conducted a ten question survey prior
to final exams. Details on survey methodology is available from Professor Holian by request.
We were able to achieve about a 67% response rate, reaching about 200 students enrolled in
Econ 1A. One of the new features this year's assessment survey provides is a baseline for
external comparison. In particular, the survey's three "test of knowledge" questions were taken
from two previously published surveys, which provide data on average scores in various
reference populations. The remaining seven survey questions are on gender, major, race and
ethnicity, income, first-generation status, and previous experience with college economics.
The tables below show average scores for the entire sample and selected subsamples. It is
noteworthy that correct response rates are greater than 90% on two questions, and above the
external benchmarks on all questions. Overall, the survey suggests we are achieving SLO 1.2
with a fairly high degree of success for the undergraduate program, but that there is room for
improvement, primarily in the area of macro models.
Two findings from the multiple regression analysis reported in Table 2 below are worthy of
noting. First, having principles of macro before principles of micro does not seem to help
students do better; this surprising obtained in both SP09 and FA09. However, in the results
presented here, students who previously had principles of micro performed better, and this was
marginally significant in one specification. These results suggest we should consider switching
the numbering of principles of microeconomics (from 1B to 1A), and principles of
macroeconomics (from 1A to 1B).
The second noteworthy findings is that the multiple regression analysis suggests there is a
statistically significant gender-based achievement gap, but no achievement gaps due to race,
ethnicity, income or foreign-born status.
The three questions we asked in this survey are shown below, and the correct answers follow.
Page 3 of 27
Program Assessment Report
1. Which one of the following is the most widely used measure of inflation?
a. The Consumer Price Index.
b. The Index of Leading Economic Indicators.
c. The prime rate.
d. The Federal Funds rate.
2. What must the government do to reduce high inflation?
a. Increase both spending and the money supply.
b. Decrease both spending and the money supply.
c. Decrease spending and increase the money supply.
d. Increase spending and decrease the money supply.
3. Which of the following occurs when one country trades wheat to another country in exchange for oil?
a. Both countries gain.
b. Both countries lose.
c. The country that trades wheat gains, the country that trades oil loses.
d. The country that trades oil gains, the country that trades wheat loses.
4. What is your gender?
a. Female
b. Male
5. What is your major or intended major?
a. Economics
b. Other major in the College of Social Science
c. Other major in the College of Business
d. Other
6. Are you Hispanic?
a. Yes
b. No
7. Which of the following best represents your race or ethnicity?
a. Asian
b. Black
c. Caucasian (White)
d. Hispanic
e. Other
8. What is the best estimate of your income, or if someone can claim you as a dependent on their tax returns, your
family’s income, in 2010?
a. Less than 24,999
b. $25,000 to 49,999
c. $50,000 to 74,999
d. $75,000 to 100,000
e. more than $100,000
9. Were both of your parents born outside of the United States?
a. Yes
b. No
10. You are taking this exam because you are currently enrolled in macroeconomics; have you ever had, or are you
currently taking a college course in microeconomics?
a. Yes
b. No
Page 4 of 27
Program Assessment Report
Correct Answers, SLO Hallmark Matching, and Question Sources (Benchmarking)
Macroeconomic Measures Hallmark
Which one of the following is the most widely used measure of inflation?
a. The Consumer Price Index.
b. The Index of Leading Economic Indicators.
c. The prime rate.
d. The Federal Funds rate.
Correct answer: (A) The Consumer Price Index.
Gen public, 35%, HS seniors, 35%, College Seniors 56%
Macroeconomic Models Hallmark
What must the government do to reduce high inflation?
a. Increase both spending and the money supply.
b. Decrease both spending and the money supply.
c. Decrease spending and increase the money supply.
d. Increase spending and decrease the money supply.
Correct answer: (B).
30 % Answered Correctly
Comparative Advantage Hallmark
Which of the following occurs when one country trades wheat to another country in exchange for
oil?
a. Both countries gain.
b. Both countries lose.
c. The country that trades wheat gains, the country that trades oil loses.
d. The country that trades oil gains, the country that trades wheat loses.
Answer: (A).
70 % Answered Correctly
Sources for correct answers:
The first question comes from http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/ecedweek/quiz.htm
The last two questions, and the rationale for the correct answers, are based on the "Test of
Economic Literacy," Second Edition, Examiner's Manual, by John C. Soper and William
Walstad, Joint Council on Economic Education, 1987. The reported % answered correctly come
from the Economic Literarcy Survey:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3580
Page 5 of 27
Program Assessment Report
Table 1 Summary Statistics
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Dev.
q1_correct
196
0.918367
0.274505
0
1
q2_correct
196
0.372449
0.484695
0
1
q3_correct
196
0.908163
0.289535
0
1
num_cor
196
2.19898
0.653353
0
3
male
194
0.530928
0.500334
0
1
econ_major
195
0.020513
0.142111
0
1
other_COSS_major
195
0.020513
0.142111
0
1
other_COB_major
195
0.820513
0.384748
0
1
other_major
195
0.138462
0.346273
0
1
hispanic_y_or_n
187
0.187166
0.391092
0
1
asian
196
0.397959
0.49073
0
1
black
196
0.05102
0.220603
0
1
caucasian
196
0.265306
0.442627
0
1
hispanic
196
0.168367
0.37515
0
1
race_other
196
0.081633
0.274505
0
1
income_L_24999
189
0.253968
0.436436
0
1
income_25000_49999
189
0.190476
0.39372
0
1
income_50000_74999
189
0.222222
0.416844
0
1
income_75000_100000
189
0.174603
0.380636
0
1
income_G_100000
189
0.15873
0.366395
0
1
previous_micro
190
0.6
0.491192
0
1
Tabulation of Test of Knowledge Question Responses
answer | Freq(Q1) Freq(Q2) Freq(Q3)
----------+----------------------------------1|
180
17
178
2|
4
73
3
3|
2
29
12
4|
10
77
3
----------+-----------------------------------
Page 6 of 27
Min
Max
Program Assessment Report
Multiple Regression Analysis
Table 2 Regression Results (Ordinary Least Squares)
VARIABLES
numcor
numcor
numcor
male
0.236**
(0.10)
-0.14
(0.18)
-0.345
(0.26)
0.197
(0.19)
0.173
(0.20)
0.45
(0.34)
-0.447
(0.46)
0.138
(0.14)
0.125
(0.12)
0.152
(0.10)
0.190**
(0.09)
0.232**
(0.10)
-0.0986
(0.18)
-0.233
(0.26)
0.179
(0.19)
0.212
(0.20)
0.446
(0.34)
-0.529
(0.47)
0.1
(0.14)
0.12
(0.12)
0.151
(0.10)
-0.212
(0.14)
0.0604
(0.15)
-0.0538
(0.15)
0.126
(0.16)
1.823***
(0.26)
186
0.155
asian
black
caucasian
hispanic
econ_major
Constant
1.780***
(0.24)
0.374
(0.34)
-0.571
(0.47)
0.0909
(0.14)
0.0181
(0.10)
0.182*
(0.10)
-0.201
(0.14)
0.153
(0.15)
-0.0245
(0.15)
0.196
(0.15)
1.894***
(0.19)
Observations
R-squared
186
0.125
186
0.112
other_COSS_major
other_COB_major
foreignparents
previous_micro
income_L_24999
income_25000_49999
income_75000_100000
income_G_100000
Standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Page 7 of 27
Program Assessment Report
The table below summarizes the methodology we will use to assess our Undergraduate SLOs.
Course-to-SLO Map, Undergraduate Program
SLO
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Brief Description
Principles of Microeconomics
Method of Assessment
Perform Assessment / Achievement Gap Survey
(1B)
Principles of Macroeconomics Perform Assessment / Achievement Gap Survey
(1A)
Analytical methods
Perform Assessment / Achievement Gap Survey
(101 for BA program & minor; 103 for BS program)
Fields:
Perform Four Assessment / Achievement Gap Surveys
1. International Economics
1.) 112, 136 & 158
2. Financial Economics
2.) 135, 137A, 137B, 139
3. Policy Economics
3.) 121, 132, 141, 151, 166
4. Quantitative Methods
4.) 103, 104, 138
(Fields 1-4 assessed for BA program; Field 4 emphasized for BS program)
2.1
How to apply core economic
theory and reasoning
Faculty Focus Group
(Faculty bring examples of undergraduate student writing, e.g. class
papers, to retreat, and use a rubric to assess student writing)
Graduate Program
The table below summarizes the methodology that we will use to assess our Graduate SLOs.
Course-to-SLO Map, Graduate Program
SLO
1.1
Brief Description
Basic economic models
1.2
Economic interdependencies
1.3
Research methods
1.4
Fields: 1. International,
2. Finance, 3. Policy, and
4. Quantitative Methods
Conduct research
2.1
Method of Assessment
Analyze results from comprehensive exam, section I
(104 and 201)
Analyze results from comprehensive exam, section II
(202 and 235)
Analyze results from comprehensive exam, section III
(205A)
Analyze comprehensive exams, sections II & III
(1. 158, 212; 2. 202, 235; 3. 132 or 232, 121 or 221; 4.
103 or 203)
Analyze final reports submitted in Policy Analysis
Workshop (205B)
Page 8 of 27
Program Assessment Report
To assess graduate SLO 1.2, we analyzed scores on section II of the Fall 2010 comprehensive
exam, and specifically the Econ 202 (macroeconomic theory) and 235 (money and banking)
questions. The questions asked over this period can be found at the following link:
http://www.sjsu.edu/economics/graduate_students/comprehensive_exams/
The comprehensive exam results for questions 2A (ECON 202) and 2B (ECON 235) are
summarized in the tables below.
Fall 2008 - Fall 2010 (covers five exam periods)
Questions A and B
combined results
Number of
Full Passes
16
Marginal Passes
17
Fails
8 (19.5%)
Total section II
64
question attempts
Spring 2006 - Spring 2008 (covers five exam periods)
Question A and B
combined results
Number of
Full Passes
30
Marginal Passes
32
Fails
27 (30.3%)
Total section II
107
question attempts
A comparison of the results presented in the two tables above show that our students have
been passing SLO 1.2 questions at a higher rate in the more recent period. Obviously there are
many factors to consider, but it is possible that the decrease in the rate of failure were due to
improvements in student learning, and possibly as a result of giving students access to previous
versions of the exams. Or the stricter admission standards may have lead to a sample selection
effect.
Page 9 of 27
Program Assessment Report
Assessment Reporting
Spring 2009 – Spring 2010
Program Information
Degree Program(s): BA and BS
Department: Economics
Department Chair: Lydia Ortega
Phone: 4-5400
Report Prepared by: Matthew Holian
Phone: 4-1371
Student Learning Outcome (SLO)
Core principles of microeconomics, namely:



Incentives Matter (law of demand; law of supply; rational decision makers weight marginal
costs versus marginal benefits; the power of self-interest)
Opportunity Costs (sunk costs; production possibilities; the free-lunch fallacy; tradeoffs in
consumption and production; gains from interpersonal and international trade; comparative
advantage)
Supply and Demand (understanding the S&D model as a representation of individual choices
in exchange based on individual preferences, knowledge and circumstances; ability to
examine current events using S&D tools; movement versus shift; welfare analysis.)
Evidence for Need:
As part of our program review, in Fall 2005 faculty in the department assessed performance of
our Principles of Microeconomics students. We implemented a national test, the TUSE (Test of
Understanding College Economics.) Although there were problems with the assessment
instrument,1 the results largely confirmed what faculty had long suspected: that students were
not achieving high enough performance levels in the area of Principles of Microeconomics.
Therefore, our assessment and curriculum committees have focused efforts over the last five
years on ways of improving performance in this area. While the department has not ignored its
other goals, SLO1 (Principles of Microeconomics) is arguably our most important SLO; it
provides the basis for much of the subsequent work in our BA and BS programs, is a GE
(general education) course, and in addition is a required course for students in the College of
Business.
1
See Fall 2008 Assessment Report, on file at: http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/docs/assess_report_08fall/06Economics-BA.doc
Page 10 of 27
Program Assessment Report
Changes to Curriculum or Pedagogy:
In Fall 2006, the Department implemented a major curricular change related to SLO1, in the
form of moving our Principles of Microeconomics (Econ 1B) courses from three to four credit
units. The rationale behind this change was that students were underperforming because of a
lack of studying. By adding a fourth unit, instructors would be able to develop online
assignments, and these would count for between 20 and 25 percent of students’ grades.
At the same time, the Department began to consider making other strategic changes, in the
form of updating and rewriting our SLOs. The rationale behind these discussions was to focus
our attention on a few core areas. For example, most students take not only Econ 1B from the
Department, but also Econ 1A (Principles of Macroeconomics). The curriculum of Econ 1A also
covers some of the same material as does Econ 1B, and so reiterating the same key concepts
in both classes should serve to reinforce learning.
Finally, the Department has continued to modify and improve its data collection processes vis-àvis assessment. Our most recent efforts are explained in detail in the report titled, “A New Tool
for Integrating Statistical Analysis, Socioeconomic and Demographic Data, and Program
Assessment.”2
Evidence for Impact:
Given the changes to our assessment data collection processes mentioned above, we were not
able to conduct before and after analyses of student performance data. However, our
qualitative assessment, which consisted largely of structured faculty discussions and
information sharing sessions, suggests that the move to four-unit classes has been very
effective.
While we don’t have hard data, before the move, it is likely that the average amount of time
students spent working on homework was very low. However after the move, we are able to
say with a good deal of precision how much time our students are spending on homework. This
is because the online homework programs that instructors have implemented in their courses
allow the instructor to observe, for each student, how much time he or she has spent working on
homework per week. Most faculty estimate that now, the average time students spend working
on homework has at least doubled, and in some cases has increased by a factor of three or
four.
At the same time, our new assessment data collection procedures suggest that there is still
room for improvement in the area of SLO1.3 The Department remains focused on further
improving our students’ performance in this area. Future initiatives will include assessing the
effectiveness of our online modules, and working to further increase our faculty’s focus on a
common set of core principles.
2
This report is on file at:
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/docs/assess_report_10spr/COSS/Holian_Assessment_Instrument.pdf.
3 These data are summarized in the report titled, “A New Tool for Integrating Statistical Analysis,
Socioeconomic and Demographic Data, and Program Assessment.”
Page 11 of 27
Program Assessment Report
ASSESSMENT REPORT, FALL 2009
Degree Program(s):
Department Chair:
Report Prepared by:
Next Program
Review:
Department:
BA, BS
Economics
Lydia Ortega
Phone:
924-5400
Matthew Holian
Phone:
924-1371
E-mail:
Matthew.Holian@sjsu.edu
2010-2011
Note: Schedule is posted at:
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/programplanning/
ARCHIVAL INFORMATION
Location:
Economics
Department
Person to Contact:
DMH
924-1371
Matt Holian
Does the information (e.g., Mission, Goals, and/or Learning Outcomes) posted on the web (see,
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/assessment/programs/ ) for this program need to be updated?
Yes
If yes, please submit changes to jacqueline.snell@sjsu.edu
No
SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES*
Please complete the schedule of assessment activities below by listing all program Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) by number down the left column and indicating when data were/will be collected (C)
and when they were/will be discussed (D) by your faculty. You can also schedule/track program
changes resulting from your assessment activities by indicating an “I” (implemented changes) where
relevant. This schedule is meant to be fluid; providing a proposed schedule for future assessment while
at the same time, providing a record of your efforts as the program planning cycle progresses.
↓Semester after Program Review
SLOs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
8
F05
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
S06
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
F06
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Semester before next Program Review↓
S07
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F07
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S08
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F08
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
S09
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F09
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
S10
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
*Note: This template is based on a five-year program planning cycle. If your program planning follows another cycle
(e.g., based on accreditation), please feel free to add (or subtract) columns as necessary.
Introduction
Page 12 of 27
Program Assessment Report
Our SLOs have been written. This was part of an overhaul of the department’s entire strategic
management process. The major changes were to drastically reduce the number of SLOs to facilitate
complete program assessment in a five-year cycle. In addition, the mission and goals were streamlined.
Finally, the mission, goals and SLOs were written in a way such that the SLOs now flow from the mission
and goals.
1. Core Principles of Microeconomics
1.1 Data Collection:
Spring 2009. In cooperation with the Office of Institutional Research (OIR), we assessed students in all of
our principles of microeconomics class. Results of this survey are provided in detail in an attached
report. The focus on this survey was 1.) overall performance, and 2.) breakdown by race.
1.2 What have you learned about this Student Learning Outcome?
Spring 2009. Our students are still not performing at an acceptable level. In addition, we potentially hae
large achievement gaps. However, future studies will attempt to control for gender and income effects.
1.3 Action Item:


We need to continue to emphasize the three hallmarks for microeconomics in our classes. This
can be accomplished by ensuring that each faculty member lists them on his or her syllabus
Disseminate the results of survey to faculty members.
1.4 Results of Action Items
1. Scores will improve
2. Faculty will focus greater attention to the diversity of learning styles among our students
Page 13 of 27
Program Assessment Report
2. Core Principles of Macroeconomics
No activity to report
3 Statistical Interpretation
We plan to ask instructors teaching: ECON 003: Economic Statistics; ECON 103: Econometrics to
discuss assessment, and to provide a paragraph for this report.
4 Core Principles from Specialist Areas
4.1 Data Collection:
Our field classes are broken into four areas. We will begin our new data collection and analysis process
by collecting and analyzing the grades students receive in each of the following classes:
Area I, International Economics
ECON 112: Economic Development; (Haight)
ECON 136: International Economics; (Haight)
Area II, Financial Economics
ECON 135: Money & Banking' (Hummel
ECON 137A: Fundamentals of Corp. Finance;
ECON 137B: Topics in Corp. Finance;
ECON 139: Principles of Investment
Area III, Public Policy Economics
ECON 121: Industrial Organization, ECON 132: Public Finance;
ECON 141: Law & Economics; ECON 151: Labor Economics;
ECON 166: Urban Economics
Area IV, Quantitative Economics
ECON 103: Econometrics, ECON 104: Mathematical Methods for Economics ,
Page 14 of 27
Program Assessment Report
5 Analytical Methods and Model-Based Argument
5.1 Data Collection:
We are developing a question to test SLO 5 on the exit exam, which we plan to administer online through
the OIR.
5.2 What have you learned about these Student Learning Outcomes?
Fall 2008. We have little hard data on SLO 5. Casual empiricism and faculty discussion suggests that
our students are very good at analyzing the costs and benefits of projects, and enter or return to the
workplace with highly developed analytical skills.
5.3 Action Item

We need to develop and implement the exit exam. After assessing this SLO, we may consider
shifting some focus to certain areas, if we find that our students show any deficits.
5.4 Results of Action Items
Fall 2008. Teaching and learning will improve and classroom content will better match student needs and
institutional goals.
6 Relationship between Verbal, Mathematical, Statistical and
Graphical Ideas
6.1 Data Collection:
We are developing a question to test SLO 6 on the exit exam, which we plan to administer online through
the OIR.
6.2 What have you learned about these Student Learning Outcomes?
Fall 2008. We have little hard data on SLO 6. Casual empiricism and faculty discussion suggests that
our students are very good at analyzing the costs and benefits of projects, and enter or return to the
workplace with highly developed analytical skills.
6.3 Action Item

We need to develop and implement the exit exam. After assessing this SLO, we may consider
shifting some focus to certain areas, if we find that our students show any deficits.
6.4 Results of Action Items
Fall 2008. Teaching and learning will improve and classroom content will better match student needs and
institutional goals.
Page 15 of 27
Program Assessment Report
7 Applying Economic Theory to Various Social Settings
7.1 Data Collection:
We are developing a question to test SLO 7 on the exit exam, which we plan to administer online through
the OIR.
7.2 What have you learned about these Student Learning Outcomes?
Fall 2008. We have little hard data on SLO 7. Casual empiricism and faculty discussion suggests that
our students are very good at analyzing the costs and benefits of projects, and enter or return to the
workplace with highly developed analytical skills.
7.3 Action Item

We need to develop and implement the exit exam. After assessing this SLO, we may consider
shifting some focus to certain areas, if we find that our students show any deficits.
7.4 Results of Action Items
Fall 2008. Teaching and learning will improve and classroom content will better match student needs and
institutional goals.
8 Evaluating Government Policy
8.1 Data Collection:
We are developing a question to test SLO 8 on the exit exam, which we plan to administer online through
the OIR.
8.2 What have you learned about these Student Learning Outcomes?
Fall 2008. We have little hard data on SLO 8. Casual empiricism and faculty discussion suggests that
our students are very good at analyzing the costs and benefits of projects, and enter or return to the
workplace with highly developed analytical skills.
8.3 Action Item

We need to develop and implement the exit exam. After assessing this SLO, we may consider
shifting some focus to certain areas, if we find that our students show any deficits.
8.4 Results of Action Items
Fall 2008. Teaching and learning will improve and classroom content will better match student needs and
institutional goals.
Page 16 of 27
Program Assessment Report
ASSESSMENT REPORT, FALL 2008
Degree Program(s):
Department Chair:
Report Prepared by:
Next Program
Review:
Department:
BA, BS
Economics
Lydia Ortega
Phone:
924-5400
Matthew Holian
Phone:
924-1371
E-mail:
Matthew.Holian@sjsu.edu
2010-2011
Note: Schedule is posted at:
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/programplanning/
ARCHIVAL INFORMATION
Location:
Economics
Department
Person to Contact:
DMH
924-1371
Matt Holian
Does the information (e.g., Mission, Goals, and/or Learning Outcomes) posted on the web (see,
http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/assessment/programs/ ) for this program need to be updated?
Yes
If yes, please submit changes to jacqueline.snell@sjsu.edu
No
SCHEDULE OF ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES*
Please complete the schedule of assessment activities below by listing all program Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) by number down the left column and indicating when data were/will be collected (C)
and when they were/will be discussed (D) by your faculty. You can also schedule/track program
changes resulting from your assessment activities by indicating an “I” (implemented changes) where
relevant. This schedule is meant to be fluid; providing a proposed schedule for future assessment while
at the same time, providing a record of your efforts as the program planning cycle progresses.
↓Semester after Program Review
SLOs
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
8
F05
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
S06
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
F06
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Semester before next Program Review↓
S07
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F07
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S08
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F08
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
S09
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
F09
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
S10
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
D,C, I
*Note: This template is based on a five-year program planning cycle. If your program planning follows another cycle
(e.g., based on accreditation), please feel free to add (or subtract) columns as necessary.
Introduction
Page 17 of 27
Program Assessment Report
Our SLOs have been written. This was part of an overhaul of the department’s entire strategic
management process. The major changes were to drastically reduce the number of SLOs to facilitate
complete program assessment in a five-year cycle. In addition, the mission and goals were streamlined.
Finally, the mission, goals and SLOs were written in a way such that the SLOs now flow from the mission
and goals.
3. Core Principles of Microeconomics
1.1 Data Collection:
Spring 2009. In cooperation with the Office of Institutional Research (OIR), we assessed students in all of
our principles of microeconomics class. Results of this survey are provided in detail in an attached
report. The focus on this survey was 1.) overall performance, and 2.) breakdown by race.
1.2 What have you learned about this Student Learning Outcome?
Spring 2009. Our students are still not performing at an acceptable level. In addition, we potentially hae
large achievement gaps. However, future studies will attempt to control for gender and income effects.
1.3 Action Item:


We need to continue to emphasize the three hallmarks for microeconomics in our classes. This
can be accomplished by ensuring that each faculty member lists them on his or her syllabus
Disseminate the results of survey to faculty members.
1.4 Results of Action Items
3. Scores will improve
4. Faculty will focus greater attention to the diversity of learning styles among our students
Page 18 of 27
Program Assessment Report
4. Core Principles of Macroeconomics
No activity to report
3 Statistical Interpretation
We plan to ask instructors teaching: ECON 003: Economic Statistics; ECON 103: Econometrics to
discuss assessment, and to provide a paragraph for this report.
4 Core Principles from Specialist Areas
4.1 Data Collection:
Our field classes are broken into four areas. We will begin our new data collection and analysis process
by collecting and analyzing the grades students receive in each of the following classes:
Area I, International Economics
ECON 112: Economic Development; (Haight)
ECON 136: International Economics; (Haight)
Area II, Financial Economics
ECON 135: Money & Banking' (Hu
ECON 137A: Fundamentals of Corp. Finance;
ECON 137B: Topics in Corp. Finance;
ECON 139: Principles of Investment
Area III, Public Policy Economics
ECON 121: Industrial Organization, ECON 132: Public Finance;
ECON 141: Law & Economics; ECON 151: Labor Economics;
ECON 166: Urban Economics
Area IV, Quantitative Economics
ECON 103: Econometrics, ECON 104: Mathematical Methods for Economics ,
Page 19 of 27
Program Assessment Report
5 Analytical Methods and Model-Based Argument
5.1 Data Collection:
We are developing a question to test SLO 5 on the exit exam, which we plan to administer online through
the OIR.
5.2 What have you learned about these Student Learning Outcomes?
Fall 2008. We have little hard data on SLO 5. Casual empiricism and faculty discussion suggests that
our students are very good at analyzing the costs and benefits of projects, and enter or return to the
workplace with highly developed analytical skills.
5.3 Action Item

We need to develop and implement the exit exam. After assessing this SLO, we may consider
shifting some focus to certain areas, if we find that our students show any deficits.
5.4 Results of Action Items
Fall 2008. Teaching and learning will improve and classroom content will better match student needs and
institutional goals.
6 Relationship between Verbal, Mathematical, Statistical and
Graphical Ideas
6.1 Data Collection:
We are developing a question to test SLO 6 on the exit exam, which we plan to administer online through
the OIR.
6.2 What have you learned about these Student Learning Outcomes?
Fall 2008. We have little hard data on SLO 6. Casual empiricism and faculty discussion suggests that
our students are very good at analyzing the costs and benefits of projects, and enter or return to the
workplace with highly developed analytical skills.
6.3 Action Item

We need to develop and implement the exit exam. After assessing this SLO, we may consider
shifting some focus to certain areas, if we find that our students show any deficits.
6.4 Results of Action Items
Fall 2008. Teaching and learning will improve and classroom content will better match student needs and
institutional goals.
Page 20 of 27
Program Assessment Report
7 Applying Economic Theory to Various Social Settings
7.1 Data Collection:
We are developing a question to test SLO 7 on the exit exam, which we plan to administer online through
the OIR.
7.2 What have you learned about these Student Learning Outcomes?
Fall 2008. We have little hard data on SLO 7. Casual empiricism and faculty discussion suggests that
our students are very good at analyzing the costs and benefits of projects, and enter or return to the
workplace with highly developed analytical skills.
7.3 Action Item

We need to develop and implement the exit exam. After assessing this SLO, we may consider
shifting some focus to certain areas, if we find that our students show any deficits.
7.4 Results of Action Items
Fall 2008. Teaching and learning will improve and classroom content will better match student needs and
institutional goals.
8 Evaluating Government Policy
8.1 Data Collection:
We are developing a question to test SLO 8 on the exit exam, which we plan to administer online through
the OIR.
8.2 What have you learned about these Student Learning Outcomes?
Fall 2008. We have little hard data on SLO 8. Casual empiricism and faculty discussion suggests that
our students are very good at analyzing the costs and benefits of projects, and enter or return to the
workplace with highly developed analytical skills.
8.3 Action Item

We need to develop and implement the exit exam. After assessing this SLO, we may consider
shifting some focus to certain areas, if we find that our students show any deficits.
8.4 Results of Action Items
Fall 2008. Teaching and learning will improve and classroom content will better match student needs and
institutional goals.
Page 21 of 27
Program Assessment Report
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
ASSESSMENT REPORT
SPRING 2006
Undergraduate Program Changes Related To Assessment
The Department’s process of faculty feedback on student learning has led to substantial changes, most
notably, the addition of an online lab to introductory courses. This development was in response to
widespread faculty dissatisfaction with student learning in the introductory courses. In discussions,
faculty narrowed the problem to “How do we get students to do more independent work.” Faculty
members had taken a variety of approaches involving more frequent tests, reviews, and short
assignments designed to motivate students to work outside of the classroom. Unfortunately, those
assignments required grading. Cursory grading (e.g. a check mark if the assignment was turned-in)
resulted in lackadaisical student effort. Rigorous grading meant that fewer assignments could be
distributed and returned in a timely manner. More assignments meant that each individual assignment
counted for a smaller fraction of the student’s grade.
Some obvious solutions—student assistants to do grading or to conduct required tutorials were
considered but quickly dismissed because there are no resources for student assistants to do grading or
facilities to have physical labs for tutorials. There are over 800 students in introductory courses each
semester. The solution presented itself in a company (APLIA) that had been trying to meet with the Chair
about their online labs in economics. In 2001 – 2002 Professors Ortega and Stringham conducted
extensive testing and evaluation of the software from a pedagogical and student-use perspective. In Fall
2002 the faculty reviewed a presentation made by APLIA and passed a detailed proposal weighing the
pros and cons of incorporating a one-unit online lab in introductory courses. Once the proposal passed
the Department, there was a challenging set of implementation hurdles. The online labs have been
running since Fall 2003. A Spring 2004 focus group discussion by faculty revealed that it would take
several more semesters of use before it would be appropriate to concretely evaluating the impact of this
change on learning. It was a major curriculum change that required time for each faculty member to learn
and incorporate in their teaching.
In Fall 2005 the Department conducted national pre- and post- testing in introductory courses. This data,
in conjunction with identified learning objectives, will be used in 2006-2007 when the Department
evaluates the learning effectiveness of online labs. It is not anticipated that the online labs will be
eliminated, rather that a discussion of best practices, perhaps technical support to incorporate the labs
into classroom discussion, and presentations by other newly developed competing companies will assist
the Department in developing a model for blending technology with traditional chalk and talk lectures.
Other Assessment Changes: Similar faculty feedback about poor performance among economics
majors in economic content and writing, and among high school teachers led to the following program
changes: (Note: Most of the changes listed below became effective in Fall 2003. The online Writing
Support page was considered in Spring 2005 and should be effective Spring 2006.)
THE DEPARTMENT NO LONGER ACCEPTS 3 UNITS OF COMPUTER SPREADSHEET AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN
ECONOMICS ELECTIVE, BUT ACCEPTS 3 UNITS OF BASIC ACCOUNTING. Accepting 3 units of computer
spreadsheet or database management for one econ elective was a very old condition that began with
accepting 3 units of programming. Students are increasingly familiar with word processing,
spreadsheets, and networking. Students have very strong private incentives to learn these methods.
Alumni surveyed in the last review indicated that accounting was highly desirable/beneficial for economics
majors.
Page 22 of 27
Program Assessment Report
THE DEPARTMENT MOVED 3 UNITS FROM THE ANY-COURSE-ELECTIVE CATEGORY TO THE ECONOMICS-COURSEELECTIVE CATEGORY. The Department concluded that further training in economics was required hence
the increase in economics course electives. The Department concluded that the B.A. and B.S. still
presented ample opportunities for interdisciplinary learning with the remaining 28 and 24 any course
elective units.
The Department renumbered Econ 103A to be a lower division course Econ 3. ECON 103A
COVERS THE MATERIAL CONVENTIONALLY TAUGHT IN LOWER DIVISION COURSES. WE ALLOW STUDENTS TO
TRANSFER 3 UNITS OF LOWER DIVISION STATISTICS WITH THE PROVISION THAT THEY MAKE-UP THE MISSING UNIT
OF LAB.
THE DEPARTMENT DESIGNATED ECON 109 TO PROVIDE INSERVICE AND PRE-SERVICE TRAINING FOR HIGH SCHOOL
TEACHERS. The Center for Economic Education concludes that one course, directly targeted at the interests
and issues facing current and future teachers will be more effective than traditional Econ 1A and 1B
courses. Economic majors cannot count Econ 109 in the major but can count it towards a double major.
THE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED TO DEFICIENCIES IN WRITING IN ECON 1B (GENERAL EDUCATION COURSE) AND
ACROSS THE DISCIPLINE BY INSTITUTING A WEB PAGE OF ONLINE WRITING SUPPORT. The use and
effectiveness of this proposal remains to be evaluated in the next review period. In brief, the web page
consists of online resources (power-point, online self-testing) to practice writing. Faculty will receive a
handbook of the lessons developed by category (e.g., Subject-Verb agreement). The handbook will also
include a variety of short, multiple-choice and short-answer tests corresponding to each online category.
Faculty will have the option of referring students for self-study of specific assignments based on
evaluation of writing and then assessing the work with a brief test.
The Department continues its evaluation of the undergraduate program and in Fall 2005, developed a formal
set of learning goals and objectives, mapped these goals into each course, and developed priorities for
assessment.
STUDENT LEARNING GOALS
1. To stimulate students intellectually through the study of Economics and to lead them to appreciate its
applicability to a range of problems and its relevance in a variety of contexts.
2. To develop familiarity with the major facts and institutions of the United States economy, other national
and regional economies and the world economy.
3. To develop a fundamental understanding of modern economic theory, of its scope and limitations, and
of its applications in the interpretation of facts and the formulation of policy.
4. To equip students with basic but relevant mathematical and statistical skills.
5. To develop in students the ability to apply the knowledge and skills they have acquired to the solution
of theoretical and applied problems in economics, and an appreciation of the appropriate level of
abstraction in the construction of models used as solution tools.
6. To develop in students, through the study of economics, a range of transferable skills that will be of
value in employment and self-employment.
Page 23 of 27
Program Assessment Report
7. To generate in students an appreciation of the economic dimension of wider social and political issues.
The faculty developed seven learning objectives based on the above learning goals. These seven learning
objectives were mapped into each undergraduate course. For assessment purposes the seven learning
objectives can be grouped into three proficiencies adapted Hansen’s “What Knowledge is Most Worth Knowing
for Economics Majors?” American Economics Review, May 1986.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
PROFICIENCY 1: DISPLAYING COMMAND OF EXISTING ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE
1.
Explain theoretical concepts and demonstrate how they can be use in microeconomic theory
2.
Explain theoretical concepts and demonstrate how they can be use in macroeconomic theory
3.
Demonstrate how to interpret statistics and apply probability methods in situations involving risk and
in quantitative evaluation of economic data.
4.
Explain core principals and demonstrate how they can be use from specialized areas in economics
(e.g., labor, industrial organization, economic development).
PROFICIENCY 2: DISPLAYING THE ABILITY TO DRAW OUT EXISTING ECONOMICS
KNOWLEDGE
5.
Identify the relationships between verbal, graphical, mathematical and statistical representations of
economic ideas and analysis.
6.
Demonstrate how to apply core economic theory and reasoning to topics of practical interest to
governments, firms, households and other institutional and social groups.
PROFICIENCY 3: UTILIZING ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE TO EXPLAIN ECONOMIC
ISSUES
7.
Demonstrate how to discuss, analyze, and write about economic policy issues and to assess the
performance of the U.S. and other economies.
METHODS FOR ASSESSING LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Proficiency 1 is traditionally evaluated by classroom examinations that require the explanation of theoretical
concepts and the demonstration of how they can be used across introductory, intermediate, and advanced
economics courses). Information from examination performance has been the Department’s main input for
Page 24 of 27
Program Assessment Report
the graduate and undergraduate program changes already instituted. The Department will continue using
regular examinations to evaluate Proficiency 1 but will also add a new component—a nationwide comparative
examination. The Nationwide Comparison assessment method, uses nationally produced tests and provides
information on how SJSU Economics students are learning relative to others. The high cost (monetary and
time) however, means that this assessment method can be conducted only periodically, approximately every
three to four years.
The Nationwide Comparison Assessment method was adopted for implementation Fall
2005. The Department used TUCE (Test of Understanding College Economics) a
nationally produced and normed test. This assessment allows the Department to do a
direct, national comparison of learning objectives across introductory economics
students and to perform an indirect, in-house comparison of learning across upper
division majors. Students enrolled in Intermediate Micro and Macroeconomics will also
take the pre- and posttests and be compared to benchmark learning by principles
student at SJSU and nationwide. This assessment method allows the Department to
make evaluations of valued-added for students who go through the major relative to
students who complete only the introductory courses.
The Department’s focus for assessment for 2006-2007 will be on identifying curricular
changes associated with the results of this Nationwide Comparison particularly as it
pertains to the impact of the online labs on learning objectives 1, 2, and 4..
Proficiency 2 is traditionally evaluated by written assignments and classroom presentations. For example,
students may be asked to analyze how economic concepts are used by the popular press (introductory and
upper division courses) and to read and interpret published professional economic analyses (upper division
courses). One method that other departments have used to assess these assignments is the collection and
review of poor, good, and excellent writing examples. This assessment method has been used and
abandoned because the method fails to draw out “more effective” conclusions from the collected data than
from the instructor’s summative, subjective assessment. That is, an assessment of this assessment method
of writing assignments is that it does not produce better or different information than the instructor’s summary
of student learning and it comes with high costs—particularly, the rapid inundation of data for processing and
storage.
For the time being, the Department decided to institute regularly scheduled faculty discussion as the
method of assessing Proficiency 2. This method acknowledges the frequent, yet often informal
assessment that currently occurs. It also acknowledges the effectiveness and role of faculty assessment
Page 25 of 27
Program Assessment Report
discussions in the Department’s recent, substantive and constructive curriculum changes. One to two
hours of the first faculty meeting of each academic year will be devoted to discussion of learning based
on the objectives for each course. Institutionalization of this feedback mechanism coupled with the
establishment of learning goals and objectives, allows the Department faculty to constructively evaluate
the link between curricular changes with improved student learning.
Note, there is overlap in assessment mechanisms of learning goals. For example, issues in objective 5,
listed under Proficiency 2 are evaluated in Proficiency 1 examinations. Objective 5 is placed in
Proficiency 2 area to highlight the importance of understanding the relationships between verbal,
graphical, mathematical and statistical representations of economic ideas and analysis in the ability to
draw out existing economic knowledge. In other words, the student should be proficient in “translating”
economic concepts from common parlance, graph, or statistics, into formal economic parlance.
While assessment of Proficiency 2 will not be a priority, in part because it has already produced
substantial changes, it will not be entirely neglected because formalized discussion of learning objectives
has been instituted for each fall semester.
Proficiency 3 has been evaluated using oral examinations of graduating seniors. At one university, at
least two faculty members questioned students on the student’s research paper. This approach was
abandoned, for some of the same reasons the Department abandoned oral comprehensive exams: high
cost of faculty time and the inability to effectively evaluate economic knowledge because of student
anxiety. The university, a small liberal arts college, switched to oral exams based on a student paper
asking for reflection on student learning objectives. Preliminary evidence, suggest that students are more
relaxed on discussion of reflections and the information may be useful for assessment-based changes.
Given the Department’s size, individualized oral examination is not feasible. Instead, the Department is
considering institution of a Senior Exit Survey. Assessment of Proficiency 3 is still in the development
stage with expected design and implementation in Fall 2009.
The Department is considering the following uses of an exit survey: ask students, submitting graduation
forms to complete an online survey; after 5 years send the survey electronically to alumni for a follow-up
assessment. Students would provide a “permanent” email address when they complete the survey the
first time. This second attempt would allow for evaluation of perceptions of student learning over time and
within a work context. This is a work in progress, but the Department has provided a rough sample of
questions that would be asked on the exit survey.
Graduate Program Changes Related To Assessment
During 2002 the Department curriculum committee completed an extensive review of the M.A. program.
The most significant change in the Graduate program also resulted from dissatisfaction with the method
of assessing student learning. Formerly, the Department used an oral exam for the program’s
culminating experience. In Fall 2003 the Department moved from oral comprehensive exams to written
comprehensive exams. This change has more evenly distributed the workload for the graduate program
across all professors who now submit and grade questions. Previously, the work of oral exams fell
heavily on a few professors who were more readily available. The change has also increased the quality
of the program and expected performance of graduate students, because exams are graded
anonymously and because students, mainly international students, are not unduly hindered by public
speaking anxiety.
Page 26 of 27
Program Assessment Report
The Department continues its evaluation of the graduate program and made the following changes at the
Fall 2005 faculty retreat. They are based on faculty findings of student learning and on student feedback
regarding the comprehensive exams.
Faculty voted to increase the requirements for admission to the MA program. Effective Fall 2006, the
requirements will be as follows:

At least a four year B.A. or B.S. degree in any discipline.

A 3.0 minimum GPA on the most recent 60 semester units (or 90 quarter units) of coursework.

Applicants with a GPA of 2.5 - 2.99 will be considered on a space available basis. These
applicants must submit GRE scores of at least 1000 including a minimum of 550 on the verbal,
plus 3.0 or higher (scale of 0-6.0) on the Analytical Writing Section of the General Test).

In addition, International Applicants must have a TOEFL of 575 (paper version) or 225 (computer
version) or provide records showing that the primary language of undergraduate instruction was
in English.
The faculty adopted limited use of GRE scores to allow students with a poor record to demonstrate ability
for the program. Previously, such students had to take courses at community colleges to change the
grade point average of the last 60 units. The faculty also agreed to post past comprehensive exams to the
Department website to help students better prepare for the exams.
In the next five years, the Department will develop better methods for tracking the quality of applicants—
their University, degree, and whether they were admitted as classified or conditionally classified. The
Department will also track the number of accepted applicants who actually enroll. The goal of better
tracking of graduate students has two objectives: to gauge the Department’s performance over time as
measured by reputations and demand, and to track resources, particularly from international and out-ofstate fees.
The following summary of the characteristics of applicants from the Spring 2006 pool serves as a
benchmark for future comparisons of graduate program applicants is from the Spring 2006 pool. In
general, the quality of applicants is approving. More applicants enter the program as classified students
because they majored in economics, double majored or minored in economics. Still the program is open
to a variety of majors including: Political Science, Marketing, Applied Mathematics, Management,
International Relations, MIS, History, Communications, Finance, Chemical Engineering, Bio Engineering,
Geography, Agricultural Economics and there is even an applicant with a Juris doctorate.
The Department always gets a large number of SJSU students—nine in Spring 2006, but applicants are
also coming from other notable universities. From California, the Department had applicants from the
following universities: UC San Diego, UC Davis (5) UCLA, Stanford University, and Santa Clara
University (3). Other United States applications came from: University of Massachusetts; HampdenSydney College, Virginia; University of Texas, Dallas; University of Notre Dame, Indiana; Holy Names
University; Lamar University; and Loyola University, Louisiana. International applications came from:
India (3) University of Madras, Osmania University, and University of Jaipur; from Doshisha University,
Japan; Nanjing University, China; Asian University, Thailand; University of Ibadan, Nigeria; and the
University of Kuwait.
Page 27 of 27