NC State Program/Department Level and Core Learning Outcomes (CLOs)
Course Assessment Report
NC State students should attain competency in the college’s six core learning outcomes as well as the appropriate program level learning outcomes prior to graduation. Each course at
NC State contributes to a student’s successful performance in one or more of the core learning outcomes (as indicated in the master syllabi) and/or program/department-level learning
outcomes. The purpose of this form is to provide a process for faculty to document how their course(s), instructional strategies/activities, and assessment methods contribute to core
and program/department-level learning outcomes achievement and to identifying and acting on areas in need of improvement. The Course Assessment Reports also inform the
Program Assessment Report (due annually in October).
Your course has been selected by program coordinators/directors and program/department faculty to report your assessment results via the Course Assessment Report.
Guidelines:
 Try to assess all sections of your selected course. If this is not doable, strive to assess a representative sample of students.
 Report on specific Core Learning Outcomes as requested. (Core Learning Outcomes are assessed institution-wide on a 3-year rotating schedule resulting in two outcomes
assessed per year. Programs may assess CLOs on a more frequent schedule as needed.)
 Send the completed form to your course coordinator and program coordinator/director.
Course Name/Number:
Term:
Course Section(s):
Core Learning Outcomes
(CLOs)
Modality:
I. Identify
the CLOs
assessed
in the
course.
If any CLO
was not
assessed in
the course,
mark NA.
Written
Communication*
Speech*
Information Literacy*
Critical Thinking*
Intercultural Knowledge/
Competence*
Computation
Face-to-Face;
Instructor:
Distance Learning;
Hybrid
FT
Time:
Day;
Evening;
Adjunct
Weekend
II. Assessment Procedures & Criteria:
III. Assessment Results:
IV. Use of Results:
Identify the assessment method(s) used to measure
and evaluate student success for this outcome.* (List
all methods.) The minimum acceptable score is 74%.
(This may require converting the score to a %.)
Report the achievement level = the
number of students earning the
minimal acceptable score (74%) or
higher out of the total number of
students who completed the
assignment AND the course (e.g.
25/50 = 50%). Report the
achievement level for each
assessment method.**
If the achievement level percentage falls below the
college-wide minimum standard (70%) for any
assessment results, identify change(s) planned to
improve student learning in this CLO.***
Proficiency**
*Rubrics are available on the Assessment of Student Learning Committee web site at http://www.ncstatecollege.edu/committees/assessment/default.htm. These rubrics may be used
as is or modified, or another rubric or assessment method may be substituted. **Components of the Computation Proficiency CLO that are reinforced and assessed at the course level
should be documented here (e.g. drug calculations in a nursing course).
Program Level Learning
Outcomes
Enter outcomes below; add
rows as needed.
I. Identify
Program
Learning
Outcomes
assessed
in the
course.
II. Assessment Procedures & Criteria:
III. Assessment Results:
IV. Use of Results:
Identify the assessment method(s) used to measure
and evaluate student success for this outcome.* (List
all methods.) State the minimum acceptable scores
for each method.
Report the achievement level = the
number of students attaining the
minimum acceptable score or
higher out of the total number of
students who completed the
assignment AND the course (e.g.
25/50 = 50%). State the program’s
minimum achievement level
percentage and report the
achievement level attained for each
assessment method.**
If the achievement level percentage falls below the
program’s minimum standard for any assessment
results, identify change(s) planned to improve
student learning in this learning outcome.***
If any
outcome
was not
assessed in
the course,
mark NA.
*Legend for Column II: Evaluation Methods -- A list of Possibilities
Direct Measures
Indirect Measures (Do not rely solely on indirect
measures)
Score gains between entry and exit on published or
local tests or writing samples
Research projects, presentations, oral defenses,
exhibitions, performances – scored using a rubric
Written documents/essays – scored using a rubric
Juried reviews of presentations or performances
Performance on licensure, certification, or
professional exams
Portfolio assessments
Scores on quizzes and tests that link to learning
Skills-based assessments using checklists, etc.
Ratings of student skills by field experience
supervisors
Performance on standardized exams
Performance on practical exams
Employer rating of graduate skills via survey,
Graduate follow-up rating of skills via survey,
interviews or focus groups
Student ratings of the knowledge or skills gained
Systematic analysis of student reflections on the
knowledge or skills gained
Students’ reflections on their values, attitudes, beliefs
outcomes
Observations of student behaviors with systematic
recording of notes
Systematic analyses of electronic discussion threads,
“think alouds,” or knowledge maps
interviews or focus groups
Scores from classroom response systems (clickers)
Feedback from computer simulations
** Please note in this section the number of students, if any, who are on the roster and did not complete the assignment (e.g. 2 students/30 who
completed the course did not complete the assignment).
***Legend for Column IV: Examples of Planned Improvements
Revising content of existing courses
Adding or eliminating courses
Improving consistency in large multi-section courses
Implementing active learning strategies and other
testing methods
Conducting a retreat or workshop for instructors
Modifying delivery methods
Sequencing courses differently
Reducing grade inflation by linking test and course
grades to mastery of all outcomes
Implementing other ways of assessing outcomes
Using a rubric for more consistent evaluation
Modifying learning activities
Revising the course outcomes to include more higherorder thinking and greater intellectual rigor
Improving communication with all faculty teaching
the course
Using technological enhancements (labs, equipment,
CD tutorial, etc.