Educational Effectiveness

The administration, faculty, and staff of the Graduate School of Theology and of Lubbock Christian University regularly monitor and thoroughly evaluate the curricula, services, and student outcome attainment and satisfaction to determine educational effectiveness and assist continuous quality improvement. The data are primarily collected at the end of a student’s program and evaluated by the administration and GST teaching faculty.


Attainment of Program Outcomes

Analysis of direct and indirect end-of-program data collected from 2016–17 GST MDiv graduates provides the following findings in terms of Program Outcomes: 

Program Outcome 1: Christian Scriptures (MDIV/MACM/MA–BI)

“Students will demonstrate competence in interpretation of, and engagement with, the Christian Scriptures.”

  • Quantitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399. Exegesis rubric overall scores. N=4 (Avg=3.23)
  • Qualitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399. Academic dean EOP evaluation (overall PO 1 score). N=2 (Avg=3.25)
  • GST EOP Survey. Both MDiv students completing the GST end-of-program exit survey that “My degree program prepared me to responsibly interpret scripture for a contemporary audience using basic hermeneutical principles.”(Q79)N=2 (Strongly agreed) 

PO 1 Summary: The quantitative data from the Internship rubric and the Exegesis rubric, as well as the qualitative data from the Academic dean’s EOP evaluation and the GST end-of-program exit survey demonstrate that we prepare students to achieve Program Outcome 1 in the MDiv, MACM, and MBI.

Averaged target for PO 1: 3.0 and “agree

TARGET MET


Program Outcome 2: Christian History and Theology (MDIV/MACM)

“Students will demonstrate broad knowledge and appreciation of Christian history and theology.”

2a. Explain the importance of significant concepts, people, and events for Christian history and theology.

  • Quantitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399. Theology rubric overall scores. N=4 (Avg=3.40)
  • Qualitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399.  Academic dean EOP evaluation (PO 2a score). N=2 (Avg=3.50)
  • GST EOP Survey. Both MDiv students completing the GST end-of-program exit survey that “My degree program prepared me to be able to explain the importance of significant concepts, people, and events for Christian history and theology.” (Q81) N=2 (Strongly agreed) 

2b. Evaluate contemporary topics/issues in religion and culture in light of Christian history and theology.

  • Quantitative:
    MIN 6330. Internship rubric Q6, “Applied appropriate theological perspectives to the ministry setting.” N=3 (Avg=4.00)
  • Qualitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399.  Academic dean EOP evaluation (PO 2b score). N=2 (Avg=3.00)
  • GST EOP Survey. Both MDiv students completing the GST end-of-program exit survey that “My degree program prepared me to evaluate contemporary topics/issues in religion and culture in light of Christian history and theology.” (Q82) N=2 (Strongly agreed) 

2c. Demonstrate familiarity with the origins, aims, and values of the Stone-Campbell movement. 

  • Quantitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399. Theology rubric does not assess this sub-outcome. This data will become available through the Readings course. (No data)
  • Qualitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399.  Academic dean EOP evaluation (PO 2c score). N=2 (Avg=3.50)
  • GST EOP Survey. One MDiv student completing the GST end-of-program exit survey and the other that “My degree program prepared me to demonstrate familiarity with the origins, aims, and values of the Stone-Campbell movement.” (Q83)  N=2 (Strongly agreed, agreed)

PO 2 Summary aggregated: The quantitative data from the Internship and Theology rubrics and the qualitative data from the Academic dean’s EOP evaluation and the GST end-of-program exit survey demonstrate that we prepare students to achieve Program Outcome 2 in the MDiv and MACM.

Averaged target for PO 2: 3.0 and “agree

TARGET MET


Program Outcome 3: Spiritual Formation (MDIV/MACM)

“Students will demonstrate competence in spiritual formation of self and others.”

3a.  Describe the options and obligations of ministers/spiritual directors in their formation role(s) for others in contemporary situations.

  • Quantitative:
    MIN 6330. Internship rubric Q7, “Demonstrated ability to guide spiritual formation in the ministry setting.” N=3 (Avg=3.67)
  • Qualitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399.  Academic dean EOP evaluation (PO 3a score). N=2 (Avg=4.00)
  • GST EOP Survey. One MDiv students completing the GST end-of-program exit survey and the other that “My degree program prepared me to be able to describe the options and obligations of ministers/spiritual directors in their formation role(s) for others in contemporary settings.” (Q85) (Strongly agreed, somewhat agreed) 

3b.  The student can articulate the approaches, aims, preferred resources, and experiences for one’s own spiritual formation and growth.

  • Quantitative:
    MIN 6330. Internship rubric Q8, “Demonstrated growth in his/her spiritual life.” N=3 (Avg=4.00)
  • Qualitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399.  Academic dean EOP evaluation (PO 3b score). N=2 (Avg=3.50)
  • GST EOP Survey. One MDiv students completing the GST end-of-program exit survey and the other that “My degree program prepared me to be able to articulate the approaches, aims, preferred resources, and experiences for one's own spiritual formation and growth.” (Q86) (Strongly agreed, agreed)

PO 3 Summary aggregated: The quantitative data from the Internship rubric and the qualitative data from the Academic dean’s EOP evaluation and the GST end-of-program exit survey demonstrate that we prepare students to achieve Program Outcome 3 in the MDiv and MACM.

Averaged target for PO 3: 3.0 and “agree

TARGET MET


Program Outcome 4: Cultural Integration of Ministry (MDIV/ MACM)

“Students will demonstrate culturally sensitive integration in practice of ministry.”

4a.  Describe and evaluate how Scripture, theology, and spiritual formation were brought to bear on ministry situations.

  • Quantitative:
    MIN 6330. Internship rubric:
    Q5, “Applied Scripture effectively in the Internship ministry setting.” N=3 (Avg=4.00)
    Q6, “Applied appropriate theological perspectives to the ministry setting.” N=3 (Avg=4.00)
  • Qualitative:
    MIN 6328 & MIN 6399.  Academic dean EOP evaluation (PO 4a score). N=2 (Avg=4.00)
  • GST EOP Survey. One MDiv students completing the GST end-of-program exit survey and the other that “My degree program prepared me to be able to describe and evaluate how Scripture, theology, and spiritual formation were brought to bear on ministry situations.” (Q88) N=2 (Strongly agreed, agreed)

4b.  Practice effective preaching in a congregational setting.

  • 4b is a program outcome for the MACM degree. There was no separate MACM data in AY2016-17.

PO 4 Summary: The quantitative data from the Internship rubric and the qualitative data from the Academic dean’s EOP evaluation and the GST end-of-program exit survey demonstrate that we prepare students to achieve Program Outcome 4 in the MDiv and MACM.

Averaged target for PO 4: 3.0 and “agree

TARGET MET


Summary of Program Effectiveness AY 2016–17 (MDiv & MACM)

AY 2016–2017 results based on data presented above and responses to additional questions in the GST EOP survey. Data supplied solely by MDiv graduates.

  1. A review of the Program Outcomes 1–4 summaries indicate that the MDiv program is achieving and exceeding its program outcomes.
  2. Student perceptions of their overall experience in the GST support the conclusion that the MDiv program is effective:

    1. How satisfied are you with your graduate program in biblical studies/ministry? (Q01)
      Responses (N=2): Very satisfied (50%); satisfied (50%).
    2. How likely are you to recommend the program? (Q02)
      Responses (N=2): Very likely (50%); likely (50%).
    3. My degree program has enhanced my performance in ministry settings (Q09)
      Responses (N=2): Strongly agree (100%)