Annual Program Review Rubric

Central Washington University (2007-2008)
Assessment of Student Learning Report: Target Levels
Feedback for the Department of
Degree Award: Program:

1. What outcomes were assessed this year and why?

Value	Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Student Learning Outcomes (Target = 2)
4	Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes. All outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
3	Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Some outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
2	Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Outcomes may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
1	Some outcomes may be written as general, broad, or abstract statements. Outcomes include knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Outcomes may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
0	Outcomes are not identified.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly specific student learning outcomes that relate to multiple domains of student development (knowledge, skill, and attitudes). In addition, higher scored reports will clearly articulate the relationship between program outcomes and department, college and university mission and goals.

2. How were they assessed?
   • What methods were used?
   • Who was assessed?
   • When was it assessed?

Value	Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Assessment Methods (Target = 3)
4	A variety of methods, both direct and indirect are used for assessing each outcome. Reporting of assessment method includes population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed
3	Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. All assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.
2	Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. All assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Some methods may have a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.
1	Each outcome is assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. Some assessment methods may be described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Some methods may have a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.
0	Assessment methods are non existent, not reported, or include grades, student/faculty ratios, program evaluations, or other "non-measures" of actual student performance or satisfaction.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly clearer information in determining how the assessment took place and the use of a standard of mastery. In addition, higher scored reports will include a greater number of methods in assessing each outcome.
*Target Levels are bolded for each area.

3. What was learned (assessment results)?

Value	Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Assessment Results (Target = 3)
4	Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms. Results are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery. Reporting of results includes interpretation and conclusions about the results.
3	Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms and are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.
2	Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms, although they may not all be explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.
1	Results are presented in general statements.
0	Results are not reported.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly clearer information about what was learned from the assessment, particularly in relation to a standard of mastery.

4. What will the department do as a result of that information (feedback/program improvement)?

Value	Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Planned Program Improvements (Target = 2)
2	Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described in specific terms congruent with assessment results. The department reports the results and changes to internal and external constituents.
1	Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described only in global or ambiguous terms, or plans for improvement do not match assessment results. The department may report the results and changes to internal or external constituents.
NA	Program improvement is not indicated by assessment results.
0	Program improvement is not addressed.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by specific curricular and pedagogical improvement information. In addition, the department reports the results and changes to internal and external constituents.

5. How did the department or program make use of the feedback from last year's assessment?

Value	Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Previous Feedback (Target = 2)
2	Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback from previous assessment reports are being used for long-term curricular and pedagogical decisions.
1	Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback from previous assessment reports are acknowledged.
NA	This is a first year report.
0	There is no discussion of assessment results or feedback from previous assessment reports.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by specific curricular and pedagogical improvement information from previous years.
*Target Levels are bolded for each area.

Contact Information Testing Services Office Location: Bouillon 125 400 East University Way Ellensburg, WA 98926-7427 Phone:(509) 963-1847 Fax:(509) 963-1849 e-mail:thelenw@cwu.edu        or henderst@cwu.edu