Schedule and Rubrics

Annual Report Assessment Schedule

Please see Instructions for Academic Departments or Instructions for Support Units for instructions, contact assessment@lasierra.edu with any questions.

Final Draft Due Date	5pm Monday, July 17, 2023
Submission & Scoring	Department Chairperson OR Division Leader scores (link to rubric below, must be signed in to your @lasierra.edu account to view) Academic Departments: https://forms.gle/VBUCsmMUcut42CVS6 Support Units: https://forms.gle/7aSrh6nLsoHYfnd66 Report reviewed and scored by two members of Assessment Committee when submitted early, on time, or within ~1 month of deadline. Report can be submitted for filing up to 1 week before colloquium. Reports not accepted after week 12 of Summer Quarter.

Reports and summaries will then flow through the plan outlined by the Academic Master Plan.

Assessment Committee Rubrics for Scoring Assessment Reports

Support Department Submission (link available starting in Spring Quarter each year).
- You will need to be signed in to your @lasierra.edu account to view.
- You should get a confirmation receipt to your e-mail. Please save this e-mail in case you need to make any edits to your submission.
- Rubric is available at the submission link and summarized below.
  - Section 0: Background and Context
    1. Unit (department or division) described.
    2. Staff names, titles, and job functions inclu
    Section 1: Unit Alignment with University Mission & Strategic Plan
    1. There is some relationship between the unit's work and the university's mission
    2. Mission statement demonstrates convincingly that it supports at least some elements of the university's mission.
    3. Well articulated mission statement.
    4. Clear alignment between goals of unit and relevant aims/strategic plan of the university
    5. The unit's mission and goals clearly contribute to the overall aims of the university in meaningful and measurable ways and these links are unambiguous.
    6. The unit's activities have demonstrated contribution to strategic plan and ongoing university operations.
    Section 2: Goals & Targeted Outcomes
    1. Some unit goals and targeted outcomes are stated.
    2. All goals have targeted outcomes.
    3. Targeted outcomes are stated in measurable terms.
    4. The list of targeted outcomes seems reasonable and appropriate
    5. Timelines are given for reaching measurable targeted outcomes.
    6. An explanation (concise) of why targeted outcomes were set is included.
    Section 3: Current Year Data Collection
    1. Some evidence is collected in order to evaluate the success of the unit.
    2. Data collection is consistent and continues to be fine-tuned.
    3. Reliable and appropriate methods are being developed and used to evaluate progress toward some of the targeted outcomes.
    4. Reliable and appropriate methods are used consistently (including, but not limited to such methods as standardized surveys, audits, structured interviews).
    5. Reliable and appropriate methods are being consistently used to measure progress toward all targeted outcomes.
    Section 4: Use of Data & Planning
    1. tion 4a: Use of Data
    2. Assessment data from Section 3 is summarized.
    3. Assessment data (including audit information, customer service surveys, consultant reports) from the prior year are shared with the unit staff.
    4. Sharing of assessment data with staff and tracking of changes being implemented is routine.
    5. Assessment data is used to make necessary changes.
    Section 4b: Planning
    1. The unit has a reasonable, plan for next year's evaluation of some goals or targeted outcomes.
    2. The unit has a reasonable, multi-year plan for evaluation of multiple goals or targeted outcomes.
    3. The unit has a comprehensive, sustainable, multi-year assessment plan.
    4. Plan describes when and how each targeted outcome will be assessed and how improvements based on findings will be implemented.
    5. The plan is routinely examined and revised.
Academic Department Submission (link available starting in Spring Quarter each year).
- You will need to be signed in to your @lasierra.edu account to view.
- You should get a confirmation receipt to your e-mail. Please save this e-mail in case you need to make any edits to your submission.
- Rubric is available at the submission link and summarized below.
  - Section 0: Background and Context
    1. Program faculty listed.
    2. Classes & faculty classification listed.
    3. Class coverage summarized & projected.
    4. Faculty Senate Academic Master Plan and/or University Strategic Plan addressed.
    Section 1: Program Learning Outcomes
    1. Some—or all—program learning aims/goals are stated.
    2. A complete list of PLOs exists.
    3. PLOs are connected to mission/values and are for the program as a whole.
    4. PLOs lend themselves to demonstrations of student learning.
    5. Outcomes are related to university learning outcomes.
    6. PLOs are well organized.
    7. PLOs focus on the most important knowledge, skills, and values of the program.
    8. PLOs express learning that can be demonstrated.
    9. Faculty agree on explicit criteria—such as rubrics—for assessing students' mastery.
    10. Faculty have identified exemplars of student performance at varying levels for each outcome.
    11. Descriptions sufficient to be able to distinguish between undergraduate and graduate SLOs are clear.
    Section 2: Curriculum Alignment with Program Learning Outcomes
    1. There is at least a minimal relationship between the program/department learning outcomes and the overall curriculum
    2. Included matrix shows alignment between program learning outcomes and courses—including introduction to, development of, and mastery of each learning outcome
    3. There is at least a minimal opportunity to develop some learning outcomes—at least some PLOs are aligned with at least one course
    4. There is at least a minimal opportunity to develop each learning outcome—each PLO is aligned with at least one course
    5. There are reasonable opportunities to develop each of the outcomes—Each PLO is aligned from I to D to M over more than one course
    6. Course sequencing and frequencies are sufficient to allow students to finish a degree in four years
    7. Program learning outcomes (PLOs) assessed in this report are aligned with course learning outcomes and evidence of this is in the included sample syllabi
    8. Program outcomes assessed in this report are aligned with course learning outcomes to ensure opportunity to achieve introductory, developing, and mastery levels
    9. Program learning outcomes (PLOs) are aligned with university learning outcomes (ULOs)
    10. Included matrix shows alignment between program learning outcomes and university learning outcomes
    11. There is evidence that all aspects of department effort and energy—curriculum development, pedagogy, grading, advising—contribute in some way toward mastering learning outcomes
    Section 3: Student Awareness
    1. Program outcomes are readily available in the Bulletin.
    2. Program outcomes are readily available on the website.
    3. Course outcomes and reference to program outcomes are included in at least some syllabi.
    4. Course outcomes and reference to program outcomes are included in most (or all) syllabi.
    5. Course outcomes and reference to program outcomes are included in all syllabi.
    6. Students may have opportunity to participate in creation or use of rubrics to evaluate outcomes.
    7. Student's knowledge of PLOs is evaluated.
    8. Evidence suggests that students have a good understanding of program outcomes.
    Section 4: Assessment Implementation
    1. Evidence to assess outcomes is collected and included.
    2. Faculty have developed relevant criteria for assessing each outcome.
    3. Appropriate evidence of student learning is collected.
    4. Faculty use explicit criteria—such as rubrics—to assess student attainment of each outcome and the criteria is included.
    5. Assessment criteria are anchored—faculty meet to agree on how the criteria are applied consistently.
    6. Assessment criteria—such as rubrics—are pilot-tested and refined over time and they usually are shared with students.
    7. Reviewers of student work are calibrated, and faculty routinely find high inter-rater reliability.
    8. Faculty take comparative data into account when interpreting results and deciding on changes to improve learning.
    Section 5: Use of Last Year's Assessment Data
    1. Assessment results are summarized and included.
    2. The chair or a faculty member examines results—they may or may not be examined collectively.
    3. Results from this or last year's outcomes were discussed by relevant faculty this year.
    4. Faculty customarily discuss assessment results.
    5. Program changes are considered based on assessment results.
    6. Supporting discussion of how the program can be improved shows evidence of thoughtful analysis.
    7. Timeframe is included for implementing changes based on findings.
    8. Results are used to evaluate department resources and suggest adjustments, as needed.
    9. Current PLO assessment results reference previous assessment of these PLOs.
    10. Follow-up studies indicate whether changes have improved learning.
    Section 6: Assessment Planning
    1. A plan for program learning outcomes (PLOs) to be assessed in the coming academic year is included.
    2. A longer-term plan is included.
    3. Five-year assessment plan where all PLOs are scheduled to be assessed is included.
    4. Schedule is reasonable and attainable.
    5. Five-year plan is fully articulated, including both when and how each PLO will be assessed.
    6. Plan is routinely examined and revised—as needed.
    7. Department allocates time and resources for developing rubrics and data gathering.
    8. Department systematically collects and archives student work.