For Academic Department Heads

The Process In Brief

  1. Faculty submit their Annual Faculty Reports to chair only; electronic copy preferred. 
  2. Chairs use faculty reports to create Annual Program Report; submit this to school/college Dean and to Assessment Committee at (link will be provided in Spring). Due dates are at Assessment Schedule. Copies of Annual Faculty Reports included for Dean, but not Assessment Committee.
  3. Assessment Committee reviews program reports and provides feedback to each program. Assessment Committee archives Annual Program Reports for reference purposes (available to other programs/departments for teaching purposes).

The Annual Assessment Report Template

Annual Assessment Report Rubric

Section 0: Background and Context
  1. Program faculty listed.        
  2. Classes & faculty classification listed.        
  3. Class coverage summarized & projected.        
  4. Faculty Senate Academic Master Plan and/or University Strategic Plan addressed.
Section 1: Program Learning Outcomes
  1. Some—or all—program learning aims/goals are stated.        
  2. A complete list of PLOs exists.        
  3. PLOs are connected to mission/values and are for the program as a whole.        
  4. PLOs lend themselves to demonstrations of student learning.        
  5. Outcomes are related to university learning outcomes.        
  6. PLOs are well organized.        
  7. PLOs focus on the most important knowledge, skills, and values of the program.        
  8. PLOs express learning that can be demonstrated.        
  9. Faculty agree on explicit criteria—such as rubrics—for assessing students' mastery.        
  10. Faculty have identified exemplars of student performance at varying levels for each outcome.        
  11. Descriptions sufficient to be able to distinguish between undergraduate and graduate SLOs are clear.
Section 2: Curriculum Alignment with Program Learning Outcomes
  1. There is at least a minimal relationship between the program/department learning outcomes and the overall curriculum        
  2. Included matrix shows alignment between program learning outcomes and courses—including introduction to, development of, and mastery of each learning outcome        
  3. There is at least a minimal opportunity to develop some learning outcomes—at least some PLOs are aligned with at least one course        
  4. There is at least a minimal opportunity to develop each learning outcome—each PLO is aligned with at least one course        
  5. There are reasonable opportunities to develop each of the outcomes—Each PLO is aligned from I to D to M over more than one course        
  6. Course sequencing and frequencies are sufficient to allow students to finish a degree in four years        
  7. Program learning outcomes (PLOs) assessed in this report are aligned with course learning outcomes and evidence of this is in the included sample syllabi        
  8. Program outcomes assessed in this report are aligned with course learning outcomes to ensure opportunity to achieve introductory, developing, and mastery levels        
  9. Program learning outcomes (PLOs) are aligned with university learning outcomes (ULOs)        
  10. Included matrix shows alignment between program learning outcomes and university learning outcomes        
  11. There is evidence that all aspects of department effort and energy—curriculum development, pedagogy, grading, advising—contribute in some way toward mastering learning outcomes
Section 3: Student Awareness
  1. Program outcomes are readily available in the Bulletin.        
  2. Program outcomes are readily available on the website.        
  3. Course outcomes and reference to program outcomes are included in at least some syllabi.        
  4. Course outcomes and reference to program outcomes are included in most (or all) syllabi.        
  5. Course outcomes and reference to program outcomes are included in all syllabi.        
  6. Students may have opportunity to participate in creation or use of rubrics to evaluate outcomes.        
  7. Student's knowledge of PLOs is evaluated.        
  8. Evidence suggests that students have a good understanding of program outcomes.
Section 4: Assessment Implementation
  1. Evidence to assess outcomes is collected and included.        
  2. Faculty have developed relevant criteria for assessing each outcome.        
  3. Appropriate evidence of student learning is collected.        
  4. Faculty use explicit criteria—such as rubrics—to assess student attainment of each outcome and the criteria is included.        
  5. Assessment criteria are anchored—faculty meet to agree on how the criteria are applied consistently.        
  6. Assessment criteria—such as rubrics—are pilot-tested and refined over time and they usually are shared with students.        
  7. Reviewers of student work are calibrated, and faculty routinely find high inter-rater reliability.        
  8. Faculty take comparative data into account when interpreting results and deciding on changes to improve learning.
Section 5: Use of Last Year's Assessment Data
  1. Assessment results are summarized and included.        
  2. The chair or a faculty member examines results—they may or may not be examined collectively.        
  3. Results from this or last year's outcomes were discussed by relevant faculty this year.        
  4. Faculty customarily discuss assessment results.        
  5. Program changes are considered based on assessment results.        
  6. Supporting discussion of how the program can be improved shows evidence of thoughtful analysis.        
  7. Timeframe is included for implementing changes based on findings.        
  8. Results are used to evaluate department resources and suggest adjustments, as needed.        
  9. Current PLO assessment results reference previous assessment of these PLOs.        
  10. Follow-up studies indicate whether changes have improved learning.
Section 6: Assessment Planning
  1. A plan for program learning outcomes (PLOs) to be assessed in the coming academic year is included.        
  2. A longer-term plan is included.        
  3. Five-year assessment plan where all PLOs are scheduled to be assessed is included.        
  4. Schedule is reasonable and attainable.        
  5. Five-year plan is fully articulated, including both when and how each PLO will be assessed.        
  6. Plan is routinely examined and revised—as needed.        
  7. Department allocates time and resources for developing rubrics and data gathering.        
  8. Department systematically collects and archives student work.

Peer Review of Teaching

Each year, faculty review the teaching of their peers as arranged by their department head.  This is the recommended template , and here is a document discussing issues in the peer review of teaching.

Program Review

Samples

Sample Alignment Matrix (Course to Department to University)

Sample Five-year Assessment Plan  (sign in to your @lasierra.edu account to view, you can make a copy of the document)