APPENDIX E
Assessment Progress Report
(To be submitted to IFT’s Higher Education Review Board By August 31 of each year after being granted
IFT Approval/Re-approval Status)
If your program proposed a learning assessment plan in your initial or re-approval application, completing
the Assessment Progress Report template will be straightforward. The Assessment Progress Report
entails specifying the program outcome(s) or course learning outcome(s) that were assessed and the
methods that were used to assess them each year after initial approval or re-approval. The other two
components of the Assessment Progress Report are: (1) a summary of what the assessment showed,
and (2) a detailed description of how the information was/is being used to improve the program and/or
student learning.
The Assessment Progress Report template is shown below.
ASSESSMENT PROGRESS PREPORT (_____ - _____ ACADEMIC YEARS)
Food Science Program:
Name of coordinator:
Title:
E-mail:
Faculty who participated in the development or approval of this
Assessment Progress Report (please list all):
I. PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) OR COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME(S) THAT WERE ASSESSED IN THE ____- ____
ACADEMIC YEARS, METHODS USED, AND KEY FINDINGS
List the outcomes that were assessed, the methods that were used to assess each outcome, and summarize key findings.
Attach all relevant rubrics. Add more boxes if more than three outcomes were assessed. The first set of boxes provides
an example of course learning outcomes, assessment techniques, and summary of key findings.
OUTCOME MEASURED
Example of course learning outcome:
Food Microbiology, F’12
Identify sanitation practices to control important pathogens and spoilage microorganisms
in foods
Method(s) of Assessment
1. All students (35) completed a multiple-choice and short-answer written exam.
2. Students (groups of 3) recommended sanitation practices for meat processing
facilities after discussing a case study.
3. Each student completed a written laboratory report about techniques to control
spoilage organisms.
4. Students completed a ‘delta-plus’ activity (anonymous report) to reflect about
learning strategies in the course.
1
Summary of Key Findings
OUTCOME MEASURED
1. Students identified pathogens and spoilage organisms on written exam with an
average score of 72%.
2. Ten/12 groups (83%) correctly identified all appropriate sanitation procedures for
the problems presented in their case study.
3. Average scores from a grading rubric for the lab report about methods of control for
spoilage microorganisms were: 4.0/5, 4.0/5, 4.5/5, and 3.0/5 for pH, temperature,
oxygen, and chemical, respectively. Overall average was 15.5/20 points = 77.5%.
4. The majority of students reported that the textbook was difficult to understand, but
lectures and lab experiences helped them learn about pathogens and spoilage
microorganisms in food. Over 90% of the responses indicated that the case study
was time-consuming but very effective in illustrating control of microorganisms in
industry.
Example of program learning outcome:
Demonstrate oral and written communication skills appropriate for food science
professionals
Method(s) of Assessment
1. Senior teams presented public demonstrations about their product development
projects to students, faculty and industry representatives. Ten industry
representatives used a rubric to evaluate the content, creativity, technical expertise
and oral communication ability demonstrated by the students.
2. Written reports and oral summaries of Journal of Food Science articles were
presented in the senior seminar course.
3. Employers of food science graduates for the past 3 years were surveyed by the
college.
Summary of Key Findings
1. All ratings on the rubric were in the ‘competent’ category. The average score for
8 teams was 92%; the average score for oral communication was 98%, according
to the industry evaluators.
2. Students’ ability to summarize JFS research data was satisfactory but not
exemplary. Eighty-two percent of the students scored ≥80% on the oral summary
assignment but only 60% scored ≥80% on the written summaries.
3. Employer comments indicated high overall satisfaction with food science
graduates, but the response rate was low (n = 9). Scores (1 = not prepared to 5 =
very well prepared) for most survey questions were above 4 except the ability to
communicate effectively in technical reports was rated 3.5.
OUTCOME MEASURED
Method(s) of Assessment
2
Summary of Key Findings
OUTCOME MEASURED
Method(s) of Assessment
Summary of Key Findings
3
II. ACTIONS BEING TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE RESEARCH FINDINGS
In the space below, interpret the above research findings in light of program expectations for student achievement.
Discuss the meaning of the learning assessment findings in relation to desired student proficiency. Describe how
these findings were used, or are being used to improve student learning (very important). If changes are being
made to courses or the food science program, summarize these changes. If lessons were learned during
implementation of the learning assessment, and changes will be made to future assessments as a result, discuss
here. (Sometimes an assessment does not go exactly as planned and it is not possible to draw conclusions reliably.
If this occurred, describe what happened and what will be done in the future to remedy it.)
Resource: Permission to use this form granted by Lisa Kramer info@PAERconsulting.com.
4
APPENDIX G
Rubric for Evaluating Assessment Progress Reports
Not yet developed
In development
Developed
Degree to which
outcomes are defined
and lend themselves to
assessment and student
learning
There is little or no
evidence that outcomes
exist for the course or
program
Outcomes exist, but are
incomplete or do not address all
of the desired outcomes for the
course or program; or, student
learning outcomes exist, but
faculty are unable to assess them
Outcomes exist, and lend
themselves to assessment
Degree to which
assessments address
outcomes
There are little or no
assessments used to
assess course learning
outcomes or program
outcomes
Assessments exist, and
have been communicated
to faculty on a regular
basis
Degree to which faculty
meaningfully discuss
students’ achievement of
outcomes and make
recommendations to act
Faculty discussions about
assessments have not yet
occurred on a formal
basis, or have only been
discussed intermittently
and in starts
There is no evidence that
assessment-based
discussions have led to
action or to any change
Assessments exist, but have not
yet been summarized,
aggregated or analyzed for
communication to faculty; or,
assessments are reported only
episodically (not regularly)
Faculty discussions about
assessments have occurred, but
only informally and among a
few
There is some evidence that
assessment-based discussions
have led to action or change; or,
there is some evidence that
recommendations based on
assessment-based discussion
have been enacted
There is ample evidence to
demonstrate that
assessment-based
discussions have led to
action; or, there is ample
evidence demonstrating
that recommendations
based on assessment-based
discussions have been
enacted
Degree to which
discussed actions are
implemented in areas
such as instruction,
curriculum, course
learning objectives, etc.
5
Faculty discussions about
assessments directly
evaluate student learning
outcomes and occur on a
regular basis