Since implementation of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) standards for accreditation in 2009, public administration programs have been developing programmatic competencies that reflect NASPAA’s universal standards. Likewise, myriad efforts have analyzed data related to student and program progress toward achievement of these competencies. This article adds to that conversation by recounting the approach to assessing competencies used in the Department of Public Administration at Portland State University. There, newly developed rubrics reflect each of the department’s 10 competencies to examine whether students are acquiring the desired knowledge and skills. This article discusses the development and design of the rubrics as well as elements of gaining faculty and student input in the process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndradeH. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning.Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13–18.
2.
AristiguetaM.GomesK. M. B.ByrdWoodAssociates Inc. (2006). Assessing performance in NASPAA graduate programs.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(1), 1–18.
3.
ArterJ.ChappuisJ. (2007). Creating and recognizing quality rubrics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
4.
ArterJ.McTigheJ. (2000). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
5.
BovairdT. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services.Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.
6.
BoudD. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society.Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.
7.
DalehiteE. (2008). Transforming grades into meaningful MPA program outcomes: Lessons from benchmarking learning objectives in the public budgeting and finance course.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(3), 413–426.
8.
Dall’AlbaG.SandbergJ. (2006). Unveiling professional development: A critical review of stage models.Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 383–412.
9.
DiazR. (2014). Assessing professional competencies: The painstaking implementation phase.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(3), 353–368.
10.
DunningP. (2014). Developing a competency-based assessment approach for student learning.Teaching Public Administration, 32(1), 55–67.
11.
DurantJ. (1997). Seizing the moment: Outcomes assessment, curriculum reform, and MPA education.International Journal of Public Administration, 20(2), 397–429.
12.
FitzpatrickJ.Miller-StevensK. (2009). A case study of measuring outcomes in an MPA program.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(1), 17–31.
13.
FlyvbjergB. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Getha-TaylorH.HummertR.NalbandianJ.SilviaC. (2013). Competency model design and assessment: Findings and future directions.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(1), 141–171.
15.
GreenR. T.KellerL. F.WamsleyG. L. (1993). Reconstituting a profession for American public administration.Public Administration Review, 53(6), 516–524.
16.
IsaacsonJ.StacyA. (2009). Rubrics for clinical evaluation: Objectifying the subjective experience.Nurse Education in Practice, 9, 134–140.
17.
KecskesK. (2013). The engaged department and higher education reform: Research, theory, and transformation of the academic unit. In ClaytonP. H.BringleA. G.HatcherJ. A., Research on service learning: Conceptual frameworks and assessment (pp. 471–504). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publications.
18.
MayhewF.SwartzN.TaylorJ. (2014). Implementing a multi-method competency model: Experiences of the MPA program at James Madison University.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(3), 321–334.
19.
McCullochA. (2009). The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration about the student-university relationship.Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 171–183.
20.
MeekJ.GodwinM. (2014). Iterative learning: Programmatic lessons from a course embedded approach to program mission assessment.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(3), 305–320.
21.
Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA), Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation. (2014). NASPAA standards: Accreditation standards for master’s degree programs. Retrieved from https://naspaaaccreditation.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/naspaa-accreditationstandards.pdf.
22.
NewcomerK.AllenH. (2010). Public service education: Adding value in the public interest.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 16(2), 207–229.
23.
NewcomerK.AllenH.BaradeiL. (2010). Improving public service education through assessing the performance of MPA alumni.International Journal of Public Administration, 33, 311–324.
24.
NicolD. J.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice.Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
25.
OstromE. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy and development.World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.
26.
OvansA. (2012, May). When no one’s in charge. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/05/when-no-ones-in-charge.
27.
ParkeC. S. (2001). An approach that examines sources of misfit to improve assessment items and rubrics.Educational Assessment, 7(3), 201–225.
28.
PeatB. (2006). Integrating writing and research skills: Development and testing of a rubric to measure student outcomes.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(3), 295–311.
29.
PiedraN.ChicaizaJ.LopezJ.RomeroA.TovarE. (2010). Measuring collaboration and creativity skills through rubrics: Experience from UTPL collaborative social networks course. In IEEE EDUCON 2010 Proceedings (pp. 1511–1516). doi:10.1109/EDUCON.2010.5492349.
30.
PowellD. (2009). How do we know what they know? Evaluating student learning outcomes in an MPA program.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(3), 269–287.
31.
PowellD.PiskulahM.Saint-GermainM. (2011, October 1). Expectations for student learning outcomes assessment for NASPAA-COPRA accreditation. Retrieved from NASPAA website: http://naspaaaccreditation.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/slo-assessment-10-1-11.pdf.
32.
PowellD.Saint-GermainM.SundstromL. M. (2014). Using a capstone case study to assess student learning of NASPAA competencies.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(2), 151–162.
33.
ReddyM.AndradeH. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448.
34.
ReidM.MillerW. (1997). Bridging theory and practice: The role of a capstone course in P. A. programs.International Journal of Public Administration, 20(10), 1769–1789.
35.
RissiJ. J.GelmonS. B. (2014). Development, implementation, and assessment of a competency model for a graduate public affairs program in health administration.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(3), 335–352.
36.
RivenbarkW.JacobsonW. (2014). Three principles of competency based learning: Mission, mission, mission.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(2), 181–192.
37.
RossJ. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment.Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 11(10), 1–13. Retrieved from University of Toronto Libraries website: https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/30005/1/The%20Reliability,%20Validity,%20and%20Utility%20of%20Self-Assessment.pdf.
38.
RubaiiN.CalarusseC. (2014). Preparing public service professionals for a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry: Evaluating the progress of NASPAA programs in competency assessment.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(3), 285–304.
39.
SchottR. L. (1976). Public administration as a profession: Problems and prospects.Public Administration Review, 36(3), 253–259.
40.
SinkD. (1991). Focus groups as an approach to out-comes assessment.American Review of Public Administration, 21(3), 197–204.
41.
WilliamsD. (2002). Seeking the holy grail: Assessing outcomes of MPA programs.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 8(1), 45–56.
42.
YorkeM. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves toward theory and the enhancement of pedagogical practice.Higher Education, 45, 477–501.
