Domain: Educational Services
Question:
Do the reported percentage results across terms provide enough evidence to support a trend claim about student learning outcomes, or do they risk over-interpreting limited data points? 
Given the expectation to include "graphs or tables of resulting trends (3-5 data points preferred)," do the materials meet that standard, or are they primarily single percentages without trend visualization that limits interpretability? 
Which contextual variables are explicitly reported alongside the percentages (for example, N/cohort size, modality/format, prerequisite completion, or structured student-feedback indicators), and which of those are absent in a way that materially constrains interpretation of changes across terms? 
If the goal is to make curriculum patterns and problems more apparent, what additional within-assessment breakdowns (e.g., rubric-scored subcomponents or item/domain-level results) would be necessary to distinguish genuine learning shifts from noise, while still staying within the existing outcome/goal framing?

Expected points in a correct answer:
States that the reported data points are not sufficient or particularly useful for understanding real trends
States that the data points does not tell the whole story.
States that results should include specific insights into areas where students struggled
States that more final exam data is needed for clarity.
States that implementing a rubric could help expand understanding of how students performed in various sub-sections
States that rubric-based sub-section scoring would help identify specific areas of student struggle
States that limited data points risk a poor interpretation of isolated percentages.
States that additional data points are needed so that committee members/reviewers can observe meaningful patterns rather than isolated results
States that details of interventions and tools should be documented to help reviewers assess effectiveness
States that the percentage only tables are limited without visuals.
States that visual representations beyond basic percentage tables would improve interpretability of the data
States that the data lacks important contextual information.
States that histograms displaying only three data points are insufficient for establishing a real trend.
States that missing information such as class size will limit valid interpretation of the results.
States that while contextual factors like prerequisites are relevant, they should be acknowledged carefully rather than emphasized, as they can come across as excuses
States that the analysis must remain focused on instructional response.
States that factors influencing performance must not be used as excuses.
States that structured student feedback indicators should be reported as indirect measures of learning
States that richer data would aid planning for fluctuation classes.
States that any added subscores must remain within the existing rubric framework.
States that any added subscores must not redefine the learning outcome.
States that additional data from finals, midterms, and projects would help identify trends and create plans for fluctuating classes.
States that additional data would help committee members review effectiveness of curriculum or instruction
States that while a graph is provided (e.g., in column F), it still lacks sufficient data to be fully informative.
States that the instructions specifically asked for graphs or tables showing trends but the materials fall short of that standard.
Provides a concrete example illustrating why percentages without class size are misleading (e.g., a difference between 80% and 73% is not significant with very few students).
States that professors can acknowledge changes in class size, enrollment, and prerequisites but must ultimately focus on teaching the students in front of them.
States that the data was only partially helpful.