Once programs have developed their learning outcomes and aligned their curriculum with those outcomes, it’s time to think about formalizing an assessment plan to guide the program in its assessments over a period of years. The goal is to assess each student learning outcome at least once in a program review cycle. Some specialized accreditors, however, ask for each learning outcome to be assessed twice during an accreditation period.
More about Assessment Planning
The assessment plan is a detailed roadmap that will guide the program in its assessment activities, drawing upon the program outcomes and the curriculum map.
The assessment plan will detail:
- What is the order in which the learning outcomes will be assessed?
- Which courses/learning experiences are being drawn upon for a particular assessment (drawn from the Curriculum Map)?
- Which student artifacts/performances will be assessed from each course that align with the LO(s)? (will you sample or pull all relevant materials)
- How will they be assessed (rubric/exam score)?
- In addition to the direct assessment of student learning, are there any additional assessments planned that pertain to the learning outcome(s) (e.g., review of signature assignments, student surveys)?
- Benchmarks and targets for each outcome (e.g., 80% of students will score a 3 on a 4-point rubric or higher)
- Who is responsible for overseeing the assessment (e.g., specific faculty, committee, etc.)
All of this information can be captured in a table, such as the example below.
| Year | LO | Courses | Artifacts | Sample | Scoring Method | Benchmark | Assmt coordinator | Date of report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | LO 1 | Course E, Course F | Final Essay, Final presentation | Sample 15 from each course | Rubric | 80% score higher than a “3” | Assmt Committee | June 1 |
| Year 2 | LO 2 | Methods courses | Research Proposal | Sample 8 from all sections (n=24) | Rubric | 80% score higher than a “3” | Methods instructors | June 1 |
| Year 3 | LO 3 | Emphasis area: Courses M, N, O, P | Student created Website | Sample 5 from each course | Rubric | 80% score higher than a “3” | Instructors from Emphasis Area | June 1 |
| Year 4 | LO 4 | Courses H, I | Applied group project for Client | All group projects | Faculty Applied Rubric, plus External Evaluation by Client | 80% score higher than a “3” | Assmt Committee | June 1 |
| Year 5 | LO 5 | Internship | Reflection Essay about LO | All students taking Internship in Year 5 | Rubric | 70% score higher than a “3” | Assmt Committee | June 1 |
| Year 6 | LO 6 | Capstone | Project | 5 projects from each of three sections | Rubric, plus Student reflection on the capstone experience | 80% score higher than a “3” | Assmt Committee | June 1 |
|
Program Review Year |
Synthesize assessment of student learning results for the program self-study. Identify areas for improvement for student learning across the curriculum and program. | |||||||
Additional Considerations
It’s OK to change the order of the assessment of your Learning Outcomes if a more pressing need emerges to address one of the LOs earlier, or if there is a problem in collecting enough student data for a given LO in a particular year.
Small programs may need to pace themselves to collect samples of student artifacts over a two-year period. There still should be some kind of assessment activity happening every year.
You may have a target benchmark for your essential outcomes that is higher than you do for your aspirational outcomes. Additionally, you may set a slightly lower benchmark if your program is developing a new outcome or learning materials and you are exploring how these are working.