|
|
|
IU South Bend Assessment Committee
- Assessment Rubric Results - Third Year Reviews 2004/05
In 2005, the Assessment Committee developed and used a rubric
to evaluate the Third Year Assessment Reviews. The rubric allows the Committee
to provide detailed and specific feedback to academic programs which is
directly related to the priorities and concerns of the Higher Learning
Commission. One faculty member commented that it, "articulates specific,
defined standards by which any unit can measure its own progress in fully-exploiting
assessment for the improvement of programs as well as of student learning,"
making it, "clear to each department involved where they can and
need to go."
As the rubric is used and improved, it will also provide valuable longitudinal
information to the Assessment Committee on campus strengths and weaknesses
in assessment.
Thirteen departments presented Third Year Reviews this spring. Predictably,
the strongest areas were goals and techniques. These areas have been emphasized
by the Assessment Committee over its history. On the other hand, record-keeping
and dissemination is a relatively new focus for the Assessment Committee.
The average in all categories landed somewhere between developing and
established.
The rubric was designed as a tool to help evaluate the various components
of departmental assessment programs. It is not a scientific instrument.
Therefore, little significance should be attached to the differences in
scores between programs. However, over time, as the rubric is refined,
it should provide a useful tool to help departments see their progress,
(or lack thereof,) in specific areas.
| IU South Bend Assessment Third Year Review Evaluation Rubric |
| Scores |
Educational Goals |
Assessment Techniques |
Data |
Analysis |
| 1 |
Undeveloped |
Absence of clearly defined educational goals |
Assessment techniques still being identified; Assessment
techniques not currently in use |
No data reported |
Little or no analysis of assessment data |
| 2 |
Developing |
Goals are not measurable |
Assessment mostly dependent on a single assessment technique
or tool; mostly narrative assessment techniques |
Only partial data included |
Some analysis done, but not shared or discussed with
entire program faculty |
| 3 |
Established |
List of clear measurable educational goals for the program
|
Assessment techniques include a variety of direct and
indirect measures of student learning |
All data or representative data included |
Assessment data carefully collected, analyzed and shared
with all department faculty |
| 4 |
Exemplary |
List of measurable educational goals clearly tied to
departmental, general education and campus strategic documents |
Assessment techniques include a variety of direct and
indirect measures of student learning with a rationale for choice
of techniques relative to educational goals |
All data or representative data included. Data submitted
in an electronic format. Individuals cannot be identified |
Assessment data is carefully collected, analyzed and
discussed by all program faculty. Departmental Assessment Committee
active. |
| IU South Bend Assessment Third Year Review Evaluation Rubric |
| Score |
Response |
Constituencies |
Record Keeping and Dissemination |
| 1 |
Undeveloped |
No changes to the program reported; no rationale for
maintaining current program given |
Faculty unaware, uninvolved or unsupportive of educational
goals and assessment of student learning. Students have no input into
or awareness of educational goals. |
No dissemination of assessment data and analysis beyond
the department faculty. Reports to Assessment Committee lacking or
very late. No established departmental assessment files. Assessment
plan lacking or badly out of date. |
| 2 |
Developing |
Some program changes reported, but not clearly connected
to evaluation of assessment data |
Faculty knowledgeable about and have input into educational
goals and support assessment of student learning. Student input collected
and considered informally. |
Assessment goals and analysis shared with all faculty,
deans, and other parties on request. Assessment plan occasionally
evaluated and updated. Annual assessment reports submitted. |
| 3 |
Established |
Program changes made in response to assessment analysis. |
Faculty are knowledgeable about the latest theories
and techniques for assessing student learning, and actively incorporate
that knowledge into course planning and evaluation. Educational goals
for courses included on all syllabi. Students have a clear idea of
the purpose of assessment and have formal input into the process. |
Assessment goals, analysis and actions taken are readily
available in an easy to understand format. Assessment annual reports
are timely and complete. Assessment plan regularly updated and changes
reported to the Assessment Committee. |
| 4 |
Exemplary |
Program changes made, (or status quo confirmed,) clearly
and directly supported by assessment analysis. Resources directed
to identified weaknesses and successes publicly acknowledged and celebrated.
|
Students are not just objects of assessment, but know
and contribute to program educational goals. Alumni, employers and
community have input into and know the results of assessment activities
through a website, focus groups and surveys. |
Website showcasing educational goals, assessment data,
analysis and program changes. Assessment Annual reports are timely
and complete. Assessment plan updated annually, and submitted with
the Third Year Review. |
top
|
|
