Southern University at Shreveport Institutional Effectiveness Planning and Reporting Rubric Description: Assessment Unit: Assessment Period: Plan/Report Submitted by: Plan/Report Reviewed by: Date Reviewed: Scale → Rubric Category ↓ Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Expectations Overall Rating and Review Comments Institutional Effectiveness Plan Mission Statement Clear and concise Specific to the program (identifies what it does that separates it from other units or programs.) Addresses the larger impact of the program. Identifies stakeholders. Aligned with the college and division mission and with respective professional organization, if applicable Statement of the program’s purpose and who it serves. Aligned with the college and division mission statements. Scope and reach may be limited General statement of the intent of the program. Identifies the functions performed but not the greater purpose. Does not identify stakeholders. Fails to demonstrate clear alignment with college or division mission. Too general to distinguish the unit or too specific to encompass the entire mission. Program Outcomes (Where Applicable) Plan contains a minimum of 3 outcomes Observable and measurable. Encompass a discipline‐specific body of knowledge for academic units (may Plan contains a minimum of 3 outcomes Observable and measureable. Encompass the mission of the program and/or the central principles of the discipline. Plan contains less than 3 outcomes or no SLO’s Describe a process, rather than an outcome (i.e. language focuses on what the program does, rather than what the student learns).
also include general competencies); focus on the cumulative effect of the program. Reasonable number of outcomes identified‐enough outcomes to adequately encompass the mission while still being manageable to evaluate and assess. Uses action verbs. Describes the level of mastery expected, appropriate to degree type (BS/BA, MS/MA if applicable. Aligned with college and university and with professional organizations, where applicable. Accurately classified as "student learning" or "not student learning". Associations (to goals, standards, institutional priorities, etc.) are identified, where appropriate. Aligned with program, college, and university mission. Appropriate, but language may be vague or need revision. Unclear how an evaluator could determine whether the outcome has been met. Incomplete‐not addressing the breadth of knowledge, skills, or services associated with the program. Outcomes identified don't seem aligned with the program mission. Fails to note appropriate associations (to goals, standards, institutional priorities, etc.). Student Learning Outcomes (Where Applicable) Assessment Measures and Benchmark The instrument used to gather data to Multiple measures for some or all outcomes. Direct and indirect measures used; emphasis on direct. At least 1 measure or measurement approach per outcome. Direct and indirect measures are utilized. Not all outcomes have associated measures. Few or no direct measures used. Methodology is questionable.
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.
Compares new findings to past trends, as appropriate. Supporting documentation (rubrics, surveys, more complete reports*, etc.) are included in the document repository. *Reports must be free of student identifiable information. Use of Results Exhibits an understanding of the Implications of assessment findings. Identifies an area that needs to be monitored, remediated, or enhanced and defines logical "next steps". Possibly identifies an area of the assessment process that improvement. Contains completion dates. Identifies a responsible person/group. Number of action plans are manageable Reflects with sufficient depth on what was learned during the assessment cycle. At least one action plan in place. Not clearly related to assessment results. to offer excuses for results rather than thoughtful interpretation or "next steps" for program improvement. No action plans or too many to manage. Too general; lacking details (e.g. time frame, responsible party). Rubric adapted from the following institutions: Indiana University South Bend, Texas A & M University,