IDENTIFYING AREAS FOR REVISIONS OF STUDENT OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT PLANS
SOA Plan:
M P I Assessment philosophy and program goals: consistent with strategic plan goals, program specific
Sample indicators of need for revision:
•
•
Overall program goals are vague or not included.
No statement of philosophy of assessment (e.g., use/usefulness, role in program operation and development procedures, etc.)
Student outcomes and competencies: includes skills and knowledge, capable of being measured, specific to program
Sample indicators of need for revision:
•
•
Competencies are too broad or vague to measure effectively.
Student outcomes are not clearly related to program goals or knowledge, skills and attitudes expected of program graduates
Frequency of assessments: identified for each assessment, reasonable frequency, appropriate timing with respect to program
sequence and targeted group
Sample indicators of need for revision:
•
•
•
Timing of assessment activities is unclear or not specified.
Connections between assessment activities and their timing are not clear.
Relationships between type/frequency of assessment activities and intended learning outcomes are not clearly evident.
Assessment methods: precise, identifiable, clearly described, appropriate measure(s) for outcome/group, source of assessment
method or how it was developed, details of administration--to whom, by whom, when, how
Sample indicators of need for revision:
•
•
•
•
Strategies are insufficiently described to determine procedures or appropriateness of procedures.
Assessment methods are not clearly linked with the learning outcomes they are intended to measure.
The plan shows heavy reliance on indirect measures of learning.
Specific information on details of administration is lacking.
Methods of evaluating and interpreting results: who will evaluate and interpret, how—including descriptors of evaluation criteria,
minimum expectations, preparation of raters/evaluators
Sample indicators of need for revision:
•
•
•
Procedures related to archiving and accessibility of assessment results are insufficiently described or missing.
Descriptions of strategies for sharing assessment results are vague or missing.
Explanations of relationships between assessment results and actions taken are unclear or missing.
The topic areas above were first outlined in the 1991 assessment policy statement and are included in the Academic Program Review Manual.
M=mature (clear, justified, and ready to implement) P=progressing (reasonable starting point) I=improvement needed (serious gaps and deficiencies noted)