Assessment Plan

Master of Public Administration Program, Department of Political Science and Public Administration

March 2004

 

 

  1. Student Outcomes: What are the student learning outcomes being measured or assessed?

 

  • Understanding of public institutions and policy processes, and specifically political and legal institutions and processes, economic and social institutions and processes, and organizational and management concepts and behavior.

 

  • Mastery of concepts and principles generally recognized as important to understanding the management of public organizations, and specifically those central to human resource management, budgeting and financial administration, and information management. 

 

  • Ability to apply quantitative and qualitative techniques of analysis to the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public policies and programs, and in decision-making and problem-solving processes.

 

  • Effectiveness in written and oral communication, critical thinking, and problem solving, ability to integrate theory and practice, familiarity with time management and project management methods, knowledge of legal research resources, ability to relate to and communicate with multiple constituencies, and familiarity with grant writing are skills important to successful public service careers.

 

Mission: The mission of the Master of Public Administration program at the University of Toledo is the promotion of excellence in the public and nonprofit sector through teaching, research, and professional service.  Specifically, the program seeks to:

a)      serve a broad and diverse body of pre-service and in-service students with courses which provide a solid foundation in public management, analytical methods, and institutional and policy processes, and prepare them for administrative careers in public and nonprofit organizations.

b)      Encourage continued professional involvement by program faculty in basic and applied research that contributes to improved understanding and better policy solutions to problems facing public and nonprofit agencies, through collaborative endeavors within the department of political science and public administration, with faculty of other departments and academic units, and with officials of public and nonprofit organizations.

c)      Support faculty and student involvement in public service activities designed to enhance understanding of public issues and encourage ongoing professional development in public administration.

 

Educational Objectives

 

  • Prepare students for careers in the administration of public and nonprofit organizations by offering a curriculum that provides students with an understanding of the theory and practice of public management, analytical methods, and institutional and policy processes.

 

  • Improve students’ skills in written and oral communication, critical thinking, and problem solving through courses that require original research papers, oral class presentations, critical reviews of books and articles from professional journals, and participation in group projects.

 

  1. Types of Assessment: What types of assessment are you using?

·         Supervisor and student internship evaluations. [currently undergoing revision]  The supervisor evaluation assesses the adequacy of the intern’s preparation for assigned duties, examines the ways in which the intern contributed to the effective operation of the organization, and seeks information on the intern’s and the program’s areas of strength and weakness. The student evaluation focuses on assessment of the effectiveness of the internship in introducing the student to fundamental principles in the practice of public management.

·         Written comprehensive examination.  The comprehensive examination is organized into three sections, corresponding to the areas of knowledge in the program mission statement: public management, analytical methods, and institutional and policy processes.  Members of the faculty prepare questions in their areas of expertise, and the program director compiles them into the exam.  Two faculty members grade each response, on a “pass/fail” basis, and provide comments on unsatisfactory responses; a majority of passing answers is needed to pass the exam.  Grades and comments are kept on file.  Students and the Graduate School are informed in writing of the results of the exam.

·         Exit interview. [under development]  Members of the Alumni Advisory Council developed exit interview questions, based on the areas of competency in the program mission statement and the student learning outcomes and educational objectives identified by the Council and the faculty.

·         MPA research and internship papers [guidelines have been approved, guidelines for grading that include skills and competencies are under consideration] These papers are intended to demonstrate the student’s ability to integrate theory and practice by analyzing some aspect of public management or political and institutional processes.  Two faculty members read each paper and offer suggestions for revision (formative evaluation).  Their evaluation addresses written communication, critical thinking and analytical skills as well as mastery of substantive knowledge.

·         Alumni survey.  An alumni survey was last conducted in February 2002, as part of the self-study process for NASPAA reaccreditation; the survey was developed as a class project in PSC 6420, Quantitative Methods in Decision Making (a core MPA class). We propose to adapt this survey for annual use, in order to compile more current information for use in program decision-making.  [attach survey?]  Questions on the survey covered program content, resources, and outcomes.  The survey elicits information about knowledge and skills acquisition, and career preparation.  Conducting an annual survey has the additional advantages of allowing us to target recent graduates, and to track their career development over time.

·         NASPAA review.  To maintain our accreditation with the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, the MPA program undergoes a review process every seven years.  This involves preparation of a self-study that incorporates information on all of the means of assessment listed above, review of the self-study by NASPAA’s Committee on Peer Review and Assessment (COPRA), and a site visit.  The site visit team prepares a report to COPRA, which then forwards to the program a recommendation regarding accreditation, and recommendations for program improvement.

 

  1. Timeline for Assessment: What is the timeline for assessment practices?

·         Internship  evaluations. [forms currently being revised]  The interim evaluation is conducted midway through the internship, and the final evaluation at the conclusion of the internship.  New forms will be used beginning in Fall 2004.  Evaluation responses are kept on file, and reviewed at the beginning of each academic year at a special meeting of program faculty and the program advisory council, comprised of MPA alumni who are employed by public and nonprofit agencies in northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan.

·         Written comprehensive examination. The comprehensive exam is given in the 12th week of the fall and spring semesters.  Students sign up with the program director to take the exam, and a student who fails may retake the exam one additional time. 

·         Exit interview.  [questions being developed]  The program director will schedule exit interviews with students who have applied for graduation each semester, after receiving a list of graduation applicants from the Graduate School, beginning with the Fall 2004 semester. 

·         MPA research and internship papers. These are required of all students in the program, and are usually completed in their last semester. Two faculty members review papers, and when the paper has been approved the student receives 6 semester hours (internship) or 2 semester hours (research paper) of credit.

·         Alumni survey.  The last survey was conducted in February 2002, and needs to be updated.  Revisions on the survey should be completed by August 2004, and the survey will be used annually from that point forward.

·         NASPAA review.  The review process takes place every seven years.  The next review will take place in the 2009-10 academic year.

 

  1. Specific Program/Curricular Changes:  What specific program/curricular changes have resulted from the use of assessment and/or how will the assessment be used to change or reinforce curricular or program practices?

 

In the past, assessment was not systemically incorporated into consideration of curriculum revision or program changes.  We expect that the process outlined here will facilitate utilization of assessment data to inform program decisions: the

program director will compile and summarize all assessment data for consideration by program faculty at an early fall meeting; if the report identifies areas of particular concern, the faculty will recommend appropriate action. Of particular value will be the exit interview responses about courses in need of improvement, and suggestions for changes or additions to the curriculum. This information will inform committee discussions of changes in specific courses or major requirements; comments on scheduling, for example, the need for a particular course to be offered in the evening, or through distance learning, will be considered by the scheduling committee in preparing schedules for future years.

 

 

  1. Specific Changes to Planning and Reallocation: How has the assessment data influenced resource allocation or program/department planning overall and/or how will it influence program planning and allocation?

 

Assessment data, over time, will inform the MPA program’s strategic planning and resource allocation decisions in several ways.  First, it will provide, on an annual basis, tangible evidence on strengths and weaknesses in our curriculum and the accomplishment of our educational objectives.  Annual fall planning meetings to discuss the assessment data from the previous academic year will provide a forum for identifying areas of concern and developing strategies for remedying them. Second, assessment data will be useful in developing proposals for new courses, and the adjustment of the program curriculum to accommodate these additional competency areas.  To the extent that new courses fall within the areas of expertise of existing faculty members, their teaching schedules will need to be adjusted, replacing less relevant courses with new ones. Some specialized areas may necessitate the hiring of a practitioner to teach one or two courses on a part-time basis. Continuing assessment, may, in the long run, culminate in proposals to hire an additional full-time faculty member in these areas, and, as current faculty members retire, information on the competency areas that should receive more coverage will be valuable in preparing job descriptions and hiring justifications for new positions