Undergraduate Learning Outcomes Assessment Summary– Rubric/Scoring Criteria for Coordinators 2016
A committee of College Coordinators will provide feedback to programsbased on these criteria. Unless otherwise indicated, missing information in any one category or overall will be scored as a ‘0’ in our reports.
1. Actions taken as a result of past assessments:
Part a (improvements to courses, curricula, academic structure during past academic year):
3 =Exemplary. Results (findings or data) from prior assessments are summarized. Use of results is discussed. Specific improvements in program or curriculum that have been implemented as a direct result of assessment findings are described. A “3” may include reports that indicate that the department has taken action after specific reviews of the results, even if such reviews lead to a legitimate decision to make no changes.
2 =Acceptable. Use of results is expressed in terms of plans for further assessment or in terms of referral to a group such as the undergraduate committee or the faculty as a whole. A “2” answer gives some indication that the results have been used or will be used, but may not be specific as to how results will guide curriculum development or improve learning. A “2” may also indicate that the results have been only partially used or addressed.
1 =Unsatisfactory. Use of results is indicated only vaguely or with no explanation for how results have been or will be used to guide curriculum development or improve learning. Or, no changes have been made in the past four-year assessment cycle.
Part b (improvements to assessment process during past academic year):
3 =Exemplary. Improvements to the assessment process are presented and a rationale for the improvements is provided. The rationale emerges from analysis of prior assessment work or information on assessment best practices, and aligns with the improvements made.
2 =Acceptable. Improvements to the assessment process are presented and a rationale is provided.
1 =Unsatisfactory. Improvements made to the assessment plan are not explained clearly and/or no rationale for the improvements is provided.
N/A = No improvements have been made in the past four-year assessment cycle.
Part c (response to ‘unsatisfactory’ scores during prior review cycle):
3 =Exemplary. Improvements were made in the program, curriculum, and/or assessment process to address the ‘unsatisfactory’ scores. These improvements are very specific, explained clearly, and directly related to the feedback.
2 =Acceptable. Actions were taken to address the ‘unsatisfactory’ scores. A rationale is provided.
1 =Unsatisfactory. No actions taken to address ‘unsatisfactory’ scores. Or, if actions were taken, they were not explainedclearly, did not align with the assessment plan, and/or did not address the feedback.
N/A = Program did not receive any unsatisfactory scores during the prior review cycle.
2. Four-year assessment plan – the big picture:
Part a (list of all learning outcomes for the current four-year assessment cycle):
3 =Exemplary. The outcomes are stated with clarity and specificity, are student-focused, and include precise verbs.
2 =Acceptable. The outcomes are stated clearly and measurable. (taken from #3)
1 =Unsatisfactory. The outcome is not stated clearly (e.g., at too high a conceptual level or with too many concepts per outcome) and/orthe measure lacks adequate specificity or content validity.
Part b (summary of current four-year assessment cycle plans):
3 =Exemplary. The plan for four years is presented. The intentions of each year’s assessments are clear, and provides context to the present year’s work.
2 =Acceptable. The approach for the four-year cycle is indicated and provides a general overview. The context for the current year’s work lacks some clarity.
1 =Unsatisfactory. There does not appear to be a cohesive four-year plan and provides no context for the reviewer.
3. Assessment process participants:
3 =Exemplary. The assessment process engages faculty (with staff, students, alumni and/or outside professionals of the field as appropriate for the assessment plan) in the review of student work and collaborative discussions that drivecontinued improvement of the program according to the program assessment plan.
2 =Acceptable. The assessment process is carried out by a central team/office/ person that consults with faculty and, staff, students, alumni and/or outside professionals of the field as appropriate for the assessment plan and reports findings to faculty for discussion and review
1 =Unsatisfactory. The assessment process is carried out by one individual and does not include any consultation with others. There is minimal or no discussion of the findings with the faculty. Department faculty are not aware of the assessment process or program learning outcomes.
4. Statement of learning outcome (repeated for each outcome assessed):
3 =Exemplary. The outcomes are stated with clarity and specificity, are student-focused, and include precise verbs.
2 =Acceptable. The outcome is stated clearly and measurable.
1 =Unsatisfactory. The outcome is not stated clearly (e.g., at too high a conceptual level or with too many concepts per outcome) and/or the measure lacks adequate specificity or content validity.
5. Appropriate measures have been used (repeated for each outcome assessed):
3 =Exemplary. Measure(s) provides direct evidence of student learning in areas specified by stated learning outcome. Examples of assessment measure(s) (tools used for analysis of student work) as well as prompts used to generate student work (for example a test question, a paper assignment, a pretest/posttest questions etc.) are supplied in the supporting documents. Assessment activities are clearly and directly connected to the specific learning outcome.
2 =Acceptable. Measure(s) is appropriate indicator of student learning. Assessment is related to learning outcome but not directly aligned.
1 =Unsatisfactory. The criteria used to measure gains in student learning (as presented in rubrics, checklists, scales, etc.) are not useful measures of student learning, and do not provide opportunity to “unpack” (disaggregate) the nature of learning strengths and weaknesses. OR The assessment measure is not aligned with the learning outcome. Assessment activities do not appear to be logical ways to investigate student learning that is described in the stated student learning outcome.
6. Results of assessment (repeated for each outcome assessed):
3 =Exemplary. Actual results (findings or data) from the assessment are presented; for example, numbers of students assessed, scores achieved (included evidence of reliability and validity), pertinent demographic information included. The data collection process and analysis methods are clearly explained and appropriate. The presentation of results allows interpretation of data in the context of the learning outcome.
2 =Acceptable. Actual results are presented. The level of detail allows an understanding of the assessment.
1 =Unsatisfactory. A summary (rather than actual results)is presented; insufficient information is provided.
7. Interpretation of results – conclusions (repeated for each outcome assessed):
3 =Exemplary. Interpretation and conclusions are clearly stated, and follow directly from the results presented, with insightful analysis regarding student learning.
2 =Acceptable. Interpretation and conclusions are clearly stated, and provide relevant analysis of the data
1 =Unsatisfactory. Interpretations and conclusions are not clear or overly general (underlying reasoning is absent).
8. Plan for action– (repeated for each outcome assessed):
3 =Exemplary. Discussion of results among assessment process participants is evident. Plans for specific improvements in program or curriculum are described and follow directly from the conclusions described above. If no improvements are adopted, the reasoning for this conclusion is valid and clear.
2 =Acceptable. Plan for action is expressed in terms of plans for further assessment or in terms of referral to a group such as the undergraduate committee or the faculty as a whole.
1 =Unsatisfactory. Discussion of results is indicated only vaguely and with no explanation for how results will be used to guide curriculum development or improve learning; OR, faculty are not involved in discussions of results.
9. Plan for this academic year – learning outcome(s) to be measured:
3 =Exemplary. The outcomes are stated with clarity and specificity, are student-focused, and include precise verbs.
2 =Acceptable. The outcome is stated clearly and measurable.
1 =Unsatisfactory. The outcome is not stated clearly (e.g., at too high a conceptual level or with too many concepts per outcome) and/or the measure lacks adequate specificity or content validity.
10. Plan for this academic year – appropriate measures proposed:
3 =Exemplary. Measure(s) proposed provide direct evidence of student learning in areas specified by stated learning outcome. Assessment activities are clearly and directly connected to the specific learning outcome.
2 =Acceptable. Measure(s) is appropriate indicator of student learning. Assessment is related to learning outcome but not directly aligned.
1 =Unsatisfactory. Assessment activities are not logicallyconnected to the type of student learning that is described in the stated student learning outcome.
See “Materials for UMD Undergraduate Programs” at “Materials for UMD Undergraduate Programs” at