Rubric for Departmental Learning Outcome Assessment Plans and Reports

Georgia State University

  

 

Introduction

The process of developing learning outcomes for students and then an assessment plan to determine the extent to which the outcomes have been achieved and how courses and programs might be modified to improve achieving the outcomes is a continuing process. The best evidence of how to do this work in an effective and efficient manner suggest beginning by specifying the desired end results (i.e., student learning outcomes) and then work backwards from those outcomes to align courses and plan assessments.

 

All this is driven by three guiding questions:

 

1.      What should our students know, be able to do, and value when they successfully complete my program (i.e., student learning outcomes)?

2.      How do we assess that our students have mastered the program learning outcomes (i.e., assessment plan and report)?

3.      How do we use the information from our assessments to modify and improve our programs (e.g., curricular and assessment, changes)?

 

The rubric which follows is designed to provide a framework for assisting departments to think through the process of developing and assessing student learning outcomes. It consists of a series of questions and indications of how they might be answered. The rubric assumes a four-point scale: (4) full implementation cycle of exemplary components has been completed; (3) implementation is operating and components are appropriate; (2) initial implementation and/or individual components need revision, and (1) planning is occurring. Progress along the rubric is one of continuing modifications and adjustments to programs, courses and assessment of student learning.


1. What should students who successfully complete my program know, be able to do, and value?

 

 

1--Evidence of limited implementation

2--Evidence of full implementation

3--Evidence of  completed implementation/ revisions

4 Evidence of  exemplary  full implementation cycle

1.1 Structure: Program has developed a set of student learning outcomes.

 

A limited number of  learning outcomes has been developed

 

Learning outcomes have been written for major (and,  if appropriate, general education outcomes)

Learning outcomes are in place and accurately reflect program and faculty expectations

Program documents operating with learning outcomes in the major (and general education) that are anchored in disciplinary standards and/or validated practices.

1.1.1 Outcomes cover major content, skills, and values/attitudes*.

Learning outcomes cover only content in the major

 

 

Learning outcomes cover student mastery of content, skills, and, if appropriate, values/attitudes.

1.1.2 Outcomes in undergraduate major address GSU general education learning outcomes (e.g., communication skills, critical thinking skills).

Learning outcomes only address discipline-specific content.

 

 

Undergraduate major outcomes include skills in communication, analytic, critical thinking, and addressing contemporary problems.

1.1.3 Core course offered by undergraduate program address  general education learning outcome(s).

Learning outcomes for courses in GSU core address only outcomes in the discipline.

 

 

Learning outcomes for undergraduate courses in core address GSU general education learning outcome(s) in tasks requiring analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

1.2 Alignment: Program has identified courses in which outcomes will be taught and assessed.

Program has some alignment between courses and program learning outcomes.

Learning outcomes and courses reflect expectations for graduates

Program, courses and activities are aligned with outcomes for graduates

Program, courses and activities document operating with a gateway and capstone experiences showing the contribution of individual courses to program learning outcomes.

1.2.1 Course syllabi in program reflect the learning outcomes outlined in the program learning outcomes plan.

Program has general relationship between program outcomes and objectives and requirements on course syllabi

 

 

Program course syllabi reflect and document objectives and assessments that correspond to program’s learning outcomes.

1.2.2 Program has sequenced courses and student learning experiences to systematically develop mastery of outcomes.

Some program courses fit into an organized system for developing learning outcomes

 

 

Program is operating with learning outcomes which reflect the sequence of learning experiences.

1.3. Format: Learning outcomes are expressed using measurable terms.

Some program learning outcomes are measurable (e.g., student will know, learn, understand).

Learning outcomes for program are in measurable terms.

Learning outcomes at program and course levels are measurable.

Program documents using measurable learning outcomes at program and course levels (e.g., Student will write, solve, describe).

1.3.1 Learning outcomes cover a range of learning levels.

Learning outcomes are primarily at the knowledge level (e.g., student will describe)

 

 

Learning outcomes cover multiple levels of mastery, emphasizing  analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.

1.4. Process: Program faculty have participated in the development and refinement of learning outcomes.

Limited documentation of faculty involvement or awareness of program learning outcomes

 

 

Program has documented faculty participation in the development and alignment of learning outcomes

 

*Values and attitudes might include topics such as professional ethics, honesty, respect for diversity, or attitudes toward life-long learning.

 

2. How do we know that students have mastered the program learning outcomes?

 

 

1--Evidence of limited implementation

2--Evidence of full implementation

3--Evidence of  completed implementation/ revisions

4 Evidence of  exemplary  full implementation cycle

2.1 Structure: Program faculty have established an assessment plan to assess mastery of learning outcomes

Program assesses program outcomes.

Program has defined the components of the program’s assessment plan as students exit the program (e.g., capstone course).

Program has completed an assessment plan that covers multiple levels and is linked to documenting program learning outcomes in the major and general education.

Program documents having completed and interpreted all assessment data (e.g., a capstone experience) which measure learning outcomes.

2.1.1 Assessment results on students are aggregated for the purpose of program assessment.

Assessment results for students remain in individual formats

 

 

Results from mastery of learning outcomes are pooled in order to assess overall performance of program graduates.

2.2 Assessment Methods:  Assessment plan includes instruments and rubrics to document student learning, skills, values/attitudes when students graduate.

Program appears to lack instruments to assess graduating students.

Program has identified appropriate instrumentation for assessing learning outcomes (observation forms, rubrics, examinations, portfolios, etc.)

Program is assessing student performance on program learning outcomes using selected instruments and procedures.

Program has documented assessing student performance on program learning outcomes using appropriate instrumentation and procedures and has evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of each method.

2.2.1 Program collects assessment data on all graduating students.

Program collects assessment data on a sample of students.

 

 

Program collects assessment data on all students.

2.2.3 Program has identified benchmarks to assess student progress through the program.

Program  assesses students during program without strategically planning when and how

 

 

Program assesses students’ progress at several points (entry, during, and program completion).

2.2.4 Assessment procedures use evidence from direct assessment of student mastery of learning outcomes.

Program collects limited or indirect data for documenting learning.

 

 

Assessment results are drawn from multiple sources, emphasizing course-embedded assessments, along with other data.

2.2.5 Program sets assessment targets that are rigorous and appropriate. Assessment targets are either not aligned with task or are too low     Assessment targets are rigorous, and include individual and group standards.

2.3 Annual assessment process is integrated into programs operation.

Program assesses evidence of student learning with limited planning or commitment.

Program generally collects assessment data on student groups identified in assessment plan.

Program is collecting all data on student groups according to assessment plan.

Program has documented completing the steps of their approved assessment plan by gathering and analyzing information about learning outcomes.

2.3.1 Program routinely collects, tabulates, and analyzes assessment results.

Program does not have a consistent process for tabulating and analyzing assessment results.

 

 

Program has developed and implemented the process for aggregating assessments from individual students and tabulating and analyzing the results.

 

3. How do we use assessment information to modify and improve our programs?

 

 

1--Evidence of limited implementation

2--Evidence of full implementation

3--Evidence of  completed implementation/ revisions

4 Evidence of  improved learning based on implementation of action plans

3.1 Improvements: Program  reviews results from assessments and suggest curricular and programmatic changes.

No evidence that assessment results are used to make programmatic modifications.

Program interprets assessment plan results with limited attention to action plans regarding assessment or curricular modifications.

The program has reviews results from the assessment plan and implements action plans on program modifications.

The program documents improvements in student learning based on instructional/curricular changes based on action plans from assessment results.
3.1.1 Program has developed action plans to guide strategies to improve student learning. Little or no evidence of analyzing assessment results to develop action plans to improve student learning     Action plans are developed with broad-based faculty participation to modify instruction or curriculum.
3.1.2 Program reports evidence of improved outcomes based on implementation of action plans. Program develops action plans but fails to report on their impact     Program tracks the impact of action plans and reports improved student learning resulting from action plans
         

 

 Assessment Home