determine if the Instruments reflect good Described with sufficient Instruments are vaguely expected outcome is research methodology. detail. described; may not be achieved at the level of Implementation may still developed yet. Feasible‐existing performance identified. practices used where need further planning. Course grades used as possible; at least some Aligned with measures an assessment method. measures apply to and outcomes. Do not seem to capture Target identified for the "end of experience" multiple outcomes. each measure. effect of the Purposeful‐clear how Specific and curriculum/program. results could be used for measurable. Targets have not been program improvement. Described with sufficient Some targets may seem identified for every arbitrary measure, or are not detail (documents; e.g. aligned with the rubrics, assignments, measure. attached in Document Seem off‐base (too Repository, where appropriate). low/high). Aligned with measures and outcomes. Represent a reasonable level of success. Specific and measurable. Meaningful‐based on benchmarks, previous results, existing standards Institutional Effectiveness Report Results of Complete, concise and Complete and Incomplete or too much organized. information. Assessment well‐organized. Measures Align with the language Not clearly aligned with Appropriate data collection/analysis. of the corresponding achievement targets. Align with the language achievement target. Questionable of the corresponding Address whether targets conclusion whether were met. targets were met, achievement target. May contain too much partially met, or not met. Provide solid evidence that targets were met, detail or stray slightly Questionable data partially met, or not from intended data set. collection/analysis; may met. "gloss over" data to arrive at conclusion.
determine if the expected outcome is achieved at the level of performance identified. Instruments reflect good research methodology. Feasible‐existing practices used where possible; at least some measures apply to multiple outcomes. Purposeful‐clear how results could be used for program improvement. Described with sufficient detail (documents; e.g. rubrics, assignments, attached in Document Repository, where appropriate). Aligned with measures and outcomes. Represent a reasonable level of success. Specific and measurable. Meaningful‐based on benchmarks, previous results, existing standards Described with sufficient detail. Implementation may still need further planning. Aligned with measures and outcomes. Target identified for each measure. Specific and measurable. Some targets may seem arbitrary Instruments are vaguely described; may not be developed yet. Course grades used as an assessment method. Do not seem to capture the "end of experience" effect of the curriculum/program. Targets have not been identified for every measure, or are not aligned with the measure. Seem off‐base (too low/high). Institutional Effectiveness Report Results of Assessment Measures Complete, concise and well‐organized. Appropriate data collection/analysis. Align with the language of the corresponding achievement target. Provide solid evidence that targets were met, partially met, or not met. Complete and organized. Align with the language of the corresponding achievement target. Address whether targets were met. May contain too much detail or stray slightly from intended data set. Incomplete or too much information. Not clearly aligned with achievement targets. Questionable conclusion whether targets were met, partially met, or not met. Questionable data collection/analysis; may "gloss over" data to arrive at conclusion.
OutcomesandAssessment_InstitutionalEffectivenessPlanningandReportingRubric.docx