Guidelines For Completing Course-Level Assessment Reports.

Assessment Committee – Nov 19, 2014
Guidelines For Completing Course-Level Assessment Reports.
List faculty who assessed or discussed assessments for sections of this course, as well as other
individuals who may have been involved in dialogue. Faculty may want to consider sending both
their results and ideas for improvement to colleagues in related disciplines and ask for feedback.
These colleagues should then be listed.
The artifacts are representational examples (not every assessment). They can be either paper or
digital copies. Consult your Dean or Director for clarification if you intend to store these in a central
divisional area. If paper copies are stored, indicate the specific office/storeroom location. For digital
copies, indicate the resource location (preferably an online resource such as Canvas or myCR).
Artifacts for performance-based assessments may be the assignment, rubric, and grading, but not an
actual recording of a performance.
List the course section (s) and the semester of the assessment. If multiple sections for a single course
were assessed, the different sections should be indicated here. Courses with two sections should
include combined results from the two sections assessed. Courses with three or more sections should
include combined results from at least three of the course sections. Include the semester of the
assessment. This is helpful because the reports are listed by academic year and not semester.
There are a variety of assessment tools. These include portions of regular class assignments or
independent assessment activities that are not part of the class grade. Authentic assessment is
often described as students applying the course outcome to real-world situations. For example,
can a student analyze a published study using the skills they learned in the course?
Assessment Committee – Nov 19, 2014
List the criteria (rubric) that was used to rank the assessments into the categories listed below. The
rubric is decided by the faculty experts and varies by the discipline. An example rubric:
 Exceeded Expectations: the student demonstrates the outcome without any errors or omissions in their
 Met Expectations: the student demonstrated achievement of the outcome, but their response included minor
errors or omissions.
 Did not meet expectations: the student did not demonstrate achievement of the outcome. The student response
included significant errors and/or omitted significant details.
Some faculty use a “percent correct” method to establish these levels: >90% exceeds; 70-90% meets; <70% does
not meet. The rubric is often specific to the discipline and the method of assessment.
The numbers of this section should be the combined numbers for all students in the sections of the
course(s) assessed. If only one course was assessed, then the numbers will reflect students in that
single section. However, courses with two sections should include combined results from the two
sections assessed. Courses with three or more sections taught in a single semester should include
results from at least three of those sections.
This section is the most important part of the report and it should provide evidence that assessment
is being used to reflect on achievement and as the basis for course improvements. This section should
provide evidence that faculty are analyzing the results and using that analysis to determine the
strengths and weaknesses of learning within the course. Even satisfactory results should be
analyzed, and ideas for further improvement should be considered and documented. If many
students are exceeding expectations then consideration should be given to the level of achievement,
and the suitability of the outcome. This is also an appropriate place to comment on the effectiveness
of the outcome and the need to modify outcomes.
This box should be checked only if there are actions/changes that are significant enough that they can
be tracked and evaluated in a future assessment. This includes actions such as writing new outcomes,
changing the format or content of the course, using substantially different teaching methods (e.g., a
flipped course or changing the course to a more activity-based format). Do not check this box if the
changes are minor and cannot be easily evaluated during the next regular assessment.
Assessment Committee – Nov 19, 2014
Examples of thorough assessment reports
Example reports -- combining multiple sections of a course
English 1A (SLO#1):
Math 15 (SLO#3)
Example reports -- single section courses
Geology 10 (SLO#3)
Anthropology 1 (SLO#1)
Biology 20 (SLO#4)
Example reports -- professional programs courses
Drafting Technology 23 (SLO#3) – single faculty report.
Auto Tech 14 (SLO#3)– single faculty with a faculty from a related discipline.
Health Occupations 170B (SLO#5)
Example reports -- performance-based courses
Speech 1 (SLO#1)
Art 23 (SLO#3)