Undergraduate/ First Professional Degree/Graduate Program Assessment of

Student Learning Outcomes - Inventory of Educational Effectiveness Indicators

Section I: Assessment Report

Assessment of programmatic student learning outcome(s)

Program and degree(s) offered: / Curriculum map attached:
Yes; please note any changes in outcomes since the last report:
No; please explain:
Program assessed in this report:
Department Chair:
Form completed by:
Academic Reporting Year: 2014-2015
URL for published learning outcomes (please complete URL): web.uri.edu/
Outcome(s) Examined / Data/Evidence / Evaluation Process / Results &
Reflection / Recommendations & Planning
Which program student learning outcome(s)was assessed during this reporting period? / Other than grades, what data/evidence* were used to determine that students have achieved the stated outcome(s) for the degree? Direct evidence is required; indirect evidence is optional.
Provide:
  • type of artifact*
  • sample(include # of students sampled, which semesters, where in curriculum the outcome was assessed (in course(s), section(s) or a program requirement)
/ What method(s) or process(es) were used to evaluate student work?
Provide:
  • evaluation tool/instrument**
  • expected level of student achievement of the outcome
  • who applied the evaluation tool and how was it used***
  • whointerpreted the results of the evaluation process****
/ What were the results of the analysis of the assessment data?
Provide:
  • quantitativeresults, including a comparison of expected level of student achievement to actual level of student achievement
  • appropriate qualitative results
  • analysis of theresults including the identification of patterns of weakness or strength
  • reflectionand conclusions
/ Are there recommendations for change based on the results?
If no:
Indicate: N/A
If yes:
Provide:
  • recommendation(s) for change(s) planned
  • timeline for programto implement the change(s)
  • timeline for programto assess the impact of the change(s)

(Add lines as needed.)

Section II. Assessment Re-Evaluation Report

Impact of change(s) based on previous assessment recommendations

Program and degree(s) offered: / Department Chair:
Academic Reporting Year: 2014-2015 / Form completed by:
Outcome / Follow-up on Prior Recommendations / Data/Evidence / Evaluation Process / Results & Reflection / Recommendations & Planning
Based on previous assessment reports and results, list each student learning outcome(s) identified for re-evaluation in 2015. / For each outcome identified, provide:
  • a description of the recommended change(s) in a prior report, and date report was submitted
  • whether the change was implemented, and if so, include date
(Ifan assessment process or structural change was made, no further sections need to be completed.) / For each outcome, indicate what data/evidence* (other than grades) were used to determine the impact of the change? (Direct evidence is required; indirect evidence is optional.)
Provide:
  • type of artifact*
  • sample (include # of students sampled, which semesters, where in curriculum the outcome was assessed (in course(s), section(s) or in a program requirement)
/ For each outcome identified, indicate the method(s) or process(es) used to evaluate the effects of the change(s).
Provide:
  • include the evaluative tool**
  • expected level of student achievement of the outcome
  • who applied the evaluation tool***
  • who interpreted the results****
/ What were the results of the change?
Provide:
  • quantitative results, including the expected and actual levels of student achievement
  • appropriate qualitative results
  • analysis of the results,
  • reflection and conclusions (include the identification of patterns of weakness or strength)
/ Overall, were the changes effective?
If yes:
Provide:
  • any additional plansor recommendations for follow-up
If no:
Provide:
  • recommendations for future plans to improve student learning results
  • date/timeline for action and re-evaluation

*add lines as needed

URI Assessment Reporting Form is in compliance with NEASC and campus reporting requirements. Revised 5/2015

* For example: embedded questions in assignments or exams, presentations, thesis proposals, comprehensive exams, performances, capstone course, portfolio review, research paper, etc.

For help, go to:

**For example: rubric, juried form, external evaluation

***For example: faculty, assessment committee, major professor, research/practicum supervisor(best practice is multiple participants)

****For example: faculty, assessment committee, chair, program director (best practice is multiple participants)