Exemplary (3) Accomplished (2) Emerging (1) Beginning (0) Connection Between SLO and Measure A clear description of the tool/activity/method is provided. AND Tools Used to measure student achievement of the student learning outcome are primarily direct measures AND And explanation is provided about how the assessment tool relates to the outcome being assessed AND Multiple tools are used to gather data for the outcome and/or assessment tool has been validated. A clear description of the tool/activity/method is provided. AND Tools used to measure student achievement of the student learning outcome are primarily direct measures. AND An explanation is provided about how the assessment tool relates to the outcome being assessed. An incomplete description of the tool/activity/method is provided. OR The explanation linking the assessment tool and the student learning outcome being assessed is superficial with no clear connection; while there may be alignment, the explanation is unclear. OR Assessment tools are primarily indirect, and include measures such as head counts and course pass rates. No description of the tool/activity/method provided. OR No relationship is apparent between outcome and assessment tools. Adapted from: University of Kentucky Annual SLO Report Rubric (2016) Exemplary (3) Accomplished (2) Emerging (1) Beginning (0) Data Collection Procedures Complete explanation of data collection processes and protocols are Complete explanation of data collection processes and protocols are Limited information is provided about data collection (for example No information is provided about data
provided such that the reviewer fully understands the data collection methodology (for example: time/semester and place, sampling process, population descriptions, and/or data review process). AND If a rubric, grading scale, or scoring sheet was used, it is appropriate to the purposes, and a sample document is appended to the report. AND Two or more reviewers are used in the data review process, or provide a secondary validation method (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, validity survey, validating focus group). provided such that the external reviewer fully understands the data collection methodology (for example: time/semester and place, sampling process, population description, and/or data review process). AND If a rubric, grading scale, or scoring sheet was used, it is appropriate to the purpose, and a sample document is appended to the report. one of the following is missing: time/semester and place, sampling process, population description, and/or data review process). OR There appears to be a mismatch between data collected and the student learning outcome(s) being assessed. collection process or data was not collected. Exemplary (3) Accomplished (2) Emerging (1) Beginning (0) Summary of Results Results are present, specific, and disaggregated within the sample population (e.g., Results are present, specific, and disaggregated within the sample population (e.g., Results are present and provided in aggregate format only (e.g., 80% of the students met the No results are present. OR Results do not match the assessment tool(s) or methodology (e.g.,
AND The report discusses benchmarks/targets/goals, whether or not they were met, and why/whey not. AND An in depth interpretation is provided (e.g., discussion of limitations, trend data, validation, and reliability tests, results from previous years, or references to targets/goals are provided). stakeholders (e.g., faculty, curriculum committee. AND The report discusses benchmarks/targets/goals, whether or not they were met, and why/whey not. Exemplary (3) Accomplished (2) Emerging (1) Beginning (0) Student Learning Improvement Actions Improvement Actions focus on the improvement of student learning. AND Description of intended improvement actions are provided. AND There is a clear explanation of the link between the improvement actions and assessment findings. AND Rationale of intended improvement action is tied to empirical/research evidence. AND Improvement Actions focus on the improvement of student learning. AND Description of intended improvement actions are provided. AND There is a clear explanation of the link between the improvement actions and assessment findings. AND The improvements are somewhat specific (e.g., approximate and where in curriculum/activities and department/program the they will occur). OR Improvement Actions focus on the improvement of the assessment process. Or Description of intended improvement actions are minimal or nonexistent. Or The explanation of the link between improvement actions and assessment findings is not clear. Or The improvements are too general (e.g., we will lad an assignment, or we will do better next year). No improvements are provided.
The improvement actions are specific, with a brief implementation plan (e.g., approximate dates of and person(s) responsible for implementation, and where in curriculum/activities and department/program they will occur.) If no improvements are planned, then the program has provided a justification or rational, such as: 1) increase the benchmark, or explain why the benchmark does not need to be increased; plans to focus on another area of concern for future assessments, 3) and work to monitor and maintain the current level of success for this outcome (i.e., “because” statements). OR No improvements planned and no justification or explanation is given. Academic Assessment Committee (AAC) Academic Affairs Office of Assessment 201 Donaghey Ave 215 Wingo Hall Conway, AR 72035 501-450-3253