UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Faculty in the Linguistics baccalaureate program at Penn State recently conducted a comprehensive review of student progress toward the program learning objective (PLO) of communicating linguistic knowledge clearly and effectively. PLOs state what students should know and be able to do by the end of the program. Their findings prompted changes in both how student performance is assessed and how content is taught.
At Penn State, all undergraduate, graduate, and for-credit certificate programs are required to assess how well their students are achieving key PLOs. Each year, programs identify at least one PLO to assess. They collect and analyze data to determine how well students are meeting that objective and then use those findings to inform any changes — whether in pedagogy, curriculum, instruction, student support or assessment methods. This helps ensure that students are gaining the knowledge, skills and abilities they need to succeed both in and beyond the classroom.
Deborah Morton, associate teaching professor in the Linguistics program, explained that the program learning assessment process encouraged faculty to reflect on how well instructional methods align with learning outcomes.
“Assessment gave us the opportunity to step back and ask: Are our methods truly measuring what matters? Replacing one assignment with more project-based work has already changed how students engage with the material and sparked broader conversations about improving other courses,” Morton said. “That, to me, is the real value of assessment.”
From multiple-choice to writing-based assignments: A shift in approach
Using student work from a required upper-level course, faculty analyzed homework assignments that asked students to examine linguistic data, identify patterns and articulate conclusions. While many students met or exceeded expectations, the assessment revealed areas for improvement. At issue was the course's reliance on multiple-choice exams — also used for program assessment in a couple of other courses.
Faculty identified several challenges with this format, including possible misalignment with the communication-focused learning objective, the influence of test-taking strategies, and the limited ability of multiple-choice items to capture the depth of students’ linguistic knowledge.
As a result, the course’s instructional design and assessment strategies were revised. Starting in Spring 2024, faculty replaced multiple-choice exams with open-ended questions that require students to define terms and propose analyses in full sentences.
To further support students, the course now allows for draft submissions with feedback. According to Morton, this adjustment may better support diverse learning preferences and provide more direct ways to assess communication skills throughout the semester.
Refinement of instruction and assessment
Faculty have said they noticed that the shift to short-answer assignments — which require students to solve complex real-world problems — has enhanced overall performance and changed the way students engage with the course content.
“Students have said that biweekly writing helped them internalize concepts covered in lectures and discussions,” noted Morton.
Morton added that the Linguistics program will continue using this revised instructional and assessment model.
Morton explained that faculty also reported that problem-based assignments requiring creative solutions, combined with flexible support, promote deeper student engagement.
“This process pushed us to think beyond a single course and reflect on the program as a whole,” said Morton. “We didn’t just create richer learning opportunities in one class — we began rethinking how assessment can strengthen connections and support student growth across the curriculum.”
About program learning assessment at Penn State
The assessment success stories featured in this series highlight how Penn State programs are using assessment findings to improve student learning. These stories typically involve a full cycle of assessment: identifying an area for change, implementing an action plan, and reassessing a program learning objective to see whether there’s evidence that the change or changes made a difference. This process plays a central role in Penn State’s commitment to continuous academic improvement and is commonly referred to as “closing the loop.”
Visit this link for more information about the program learning assessment process, or email assessment@psu.edu with any questions.