Department/ Discipline: Course: Name of person submitting this document: Assessment Coach: Date Submitted: Directions: Working with your Assessment Coach, complete the Rubric for Reassessment. Within each domain, highlight the appropriate performance level and add comments, as necessary. To meet the criteria, the DAT and Assessment Coach should reach a consensus. An assessment must score in the “Good” performance level or higher in at least 3 of the domains. The course should be reassessed with an action plan if any of the domains are deemed as “Below Average” or “Unsatisfactory.” Excellent Good Average Below Average Unsatisfactory Department Comments Coach’s Comments Domain Alignment and Authenticity The course outcomes thoroughly and accurately reflect how the course is taught. The course outcomes clearly reflect how the course is taught, but there are one or two minor wording issues in the outcomes that could be clarified. All but one of the course outcomes align with how the course is taught. More than one of the course outcomes do not reflect how the course is taught. All of the course outcomes do not reflect the ways that the course is taught. Assessment Instrument(s): Validity The MC and/or rubric based assessment is valid. The MC Assessment is valid for the course: the connections between the assessment The MC and/or rubric based assessment is valid. The MC Assessment is valid for the course: the connections between the assessment The MC and/or rubric assessment is valid. The MC Assessment is valid for the course: the connections between the assessment The MC and/or rubric based assessment is invalid. The MC Assessment is for the course: the connections between the The MC and/or rubric based assessment is invalid. The MC Assessment is valid for the course: the
instrument and the course outcomes and MOs are logical and natural for 100-90% of the questions. The rubric-based assessment tool is valid for the course: the connections between the assessment instrument and the course outcomes and MOs are logical and natural. instrument and the course outcomes and MOs are logical and natural for 89-80%% of the questions. The rubric-based assessment tool is valid for the course: the connections between the assessment instrument and the course outcomes and MOs are logical and natural, with the exception of one connection. instrument and the course outcomes and MOs are logical and natural for 79-70% of the questions. The rubric-based assessment tool is valid for the course: the connections between the assessment instrument and the course outcomes and MOs are logical and natural, with the exception of two or three connections. assessment instrument and the course outcomes and MOs are logical and natural for 69-60% of the questions. There are more than 3 connections between the rubric assessment instrument and the course outcomes and MOs that are not logical and natural. connections between the assessment instrument and the course outcomes and MOs are logical and natural for less than 60% of the questions. The connections between the rubric assessment instrument and the course outcomes and MOs are not logical and natural. Assessment Instrument(s): Reliability The MC and/or assessment tool is reliable. For MC Assessments: The MC questions are thorough, directly linking to the outcomes. Each outcome is tied to questions. For Rubrics: The rubric domains The MC and/or assessment tool is reliable. For MC Assessments: The MC questions are effective, directly linking to the outcomes. Each outcome is tied to questions. For Rubrics: The rubric domains effectively the The MC and/or assessment tool is reliable. For MC Assessments: The MC questions are clear, aligning to the outcomes, despite 1 or 2 unclear questions. However, each outcome is tied to 3 questions. The MC and/or rubric-based assessment tool is partially reliable. For MC Assessments: The MC questions are partially clear. 3 outcomes per question are used, but not all of the questions directly align to the outcomes. The MC and/or rubric-based assessment tool is not reliable. For MC Assessments: The MC questions are vague and not directly tied to the outcomes. Fewer than 3 questions per
thoroughly all of the outcomes, using clear and distinct performance levels and cogent language. outcomes, using clear and distinct performance levels, despite one or two vague terms. For Rubrics: The rubric domains primarily cover the outcomes, though one domain could be more directly tied to the outcomes. The performance levels, aside from two descriptors, are distinct. The language is clear, despite 3-4 vague terms. For Rubrics: The rubric domains only partially cover the outcomes. Several performance levels overlap, and there are multiple uses of vague language that hinders clarity. outcome are used. For Rubrics: The rubric domains do not connect to any of the outcomes. The performance levels are redundant, and vague terms hinder clarity. Assessment Data: SLOAR – Success Rate The percentage of students who are successful* meets the department preset target for all course outcomes *Successful is defined as the sum of the Excellent, Good, and Average percentages on the SLOAR graph The percentage of students who are successful* meets the department preset target for of course outcomes The percentage of students who are successful* meets the department preset target for of course outcomes The percentage of students who are successful* meets the department preset target for only some (<50%) of course outcomes Students do not show desired success rates for any of the course outcomes Assessment Data: Overall Course Performance Students’ assessment scores directly align with their overall course grades, including F, W, and FX grades. Despite one or two discrepancies, a clear majority of the students’ assessment scores align with overall course grades, including F, W, and FX grades student’s overall course grades are not as strong as assessment scores (or vice-versa), there are no glaring problems (students scoring “excellent” Overall, students’ assessment scores do not align with overall course performance (for instance, 70% of students scored “excellent” and There are no correlations between assessments scores and students’ overall course grades,