| 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plan lacking or badly out of date.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 accomplishments noted.
|
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. |
