Student Learning Outcomes

Student learning outcomes should exhibit the following characteristics:

• use action verbs to indicate specific and detailed action steps.
• be measurable or observable.
• be aligned with department or program’s mission statement, University strategic goals, and division goals (if available).
• be focused on student learning, rather than teaching (e.g., outcomes should describe what you want students to know or be able to do, rather than the content of the course that the faculty will be delivering). For example, “introduce students to the literature of William Faulkner” focuses on the teaching of the course, while “demonstrate the capacity to analyze the metaphors in a literary passage” is a student learning outcome.

Means of Assessment

The assessment measures in an assessment report should do the following:

• appropriately assess and align with the intended student learning outcomes.
• contain multiple types of measures (e.g. direct/indirect, objective/subjective, qualitative/quantitative) for all or most outcomes (usually in the form of direct assessment of student work scored with a rubric or rubrics as well as indirect assessment of the outcomes which is most often done by including relevant questions related to outcomes on course evaluations).
• clearly describe assessment instruments (and include copies of the instruments as appendices to the annual assessment report).
• yield meaningful data or information for improvement.
• provide for measurement in all modes of multi-modal offerings, i.e. if a course has both in-person and online sections, sampling should occur in both types of sections.

Assessment Results/Findings

Findings described in the assessment report should:

• provide a clear, complete, and well-organized summary of results for all assessment measures.
• include appropriate supporting documentation (tables, charts summarizing the data gathered).
• be interpreted in an appropriate scope (e.g., sample size and generalizability are considered).
• compare data between modes of instruction (if appropriate), i.e. were there differences in student performance between in-person and online sections?
• include conclusions drawn from and supported by assessment data and evidence.
• indicate how the data was shared and discussed with faculty and other appropriate stakeholders.
• evaluate the appropriateness of target population, assessment instruments, and methods utilized.
• compare new findings to past trends as appropriate.

Note: If there are not sufficient data to reach conclusions or findings, please report on how much data were collected, and indicate an anticipated date of when enough data will be available to reach conclusions. If your program has a very small number of students in it, you can confer with the Assistant Provost to discuss the option of submitting assessment reports every other year.

Note: Results must be free of student-identifiable information.

Use of Results Towards Continuous Improvement

While assessment reports may focus mostly on a specific time period (the last year), the assessment itself is a continual loop: findings should build upon previous successes and missteps, and provide data for future teaching practice. To that end, reports should:

• provide clarity in how the assessment findings will be used to improve teaching and course design.
• identify key areas that need to be monitored, remediated, or enhanced.
• reflect with sufficient depth what was learned from this and previous assessment cycles, including how well strategies for improvement that were implemented as a result of previous reports are working.
• provide an action-based timeline or a list of new strategies for improvement.

Stakeholder Involvement

Assessment involves more than the chair/coordinator and the faculty member who compile the report. Faculty and other stakeholders’ involvement is important. The assessment report should provide clear documentation of how the results, decisions, and actions were shared with faculty and staff members and other relevant constituencies. Those constituencies should have the opportunity to suggest plans for improvement of teaching and learning.

Program Information

Academic Program (Major, Degree Name):
Degree (B.A., B.S, etc.):
Department or Program:
Division:
Academic Year Covered by This Report:

Contact Person(s)

Name: Person(s) responsible for coordinating the assessment effort
Email:

Program Mission Statement

This is the educational mission statement focused on the major, not an organizational mission statement for your department or division. (Note: Most can be found in the Miami General Bulletin.)

Student Learning Outcomes

Each program or major should have at least three measurable outcomes. Outcomes describe the knowledge, skills, and abilities that a student should attain by completing the degree program.

Procedure Used for Assessment

• Direct Assessment (Evaluation/Observation of Student Work): For each learning outcome addressed by this report, state where and when data were collected (in a course, exam, or performance) and how they were evaluated (e.g., rubric, rating scale). Specify the course or courses where students demonstrated the outcomes (if applicable) and the assignment(s) that you used for assessment purposes (e.g., capstone project, final examination, research paper, portfolio, etc.). Describe how student papers were selected and sample size. Please indicate how you assured that the data are representative.
• Scoring of student work: For each learning outcome addressed by this report, describe how you scored students’ level of mastery of the outcomes. For example, did you use a rubric, rating scale or answer key, or was it scored by a testing company? If you used a rubric or rating, be sure to include the instrument as an appendix. Who did the scoring? One or more persons? Note: It is preferable to have more than one person scoring and to ensure that the scorer was not the instructor of the student whose work is being assessed.
• Indirect Assessment (Perceptions of Student Learning): For each learning outcome addressed by this report, describe how you indirectly assessed student, employer, or alumni perceptions of their learning in relation to the outcome (e.g., course evaluations, focus groups with graduating students, alumni survey, etc.).

Attach relevant questions on online course evaluations, alumni survey, focus session protocol, etc. in an appendix.

Assessment Results and Closing the Loop

• Assessment Results: After analyzing your data, present a summary of the data, preferably in a table, clearly indicating what any numbers represent (e.g., means? medians?). If any course has both in-person and online sections, include a comparative analysis of student performance between the modes.
• Feedback Loop: Describe how you shared the results with faculty and other stakeholders. Explain briefly how you will make improvements based upon the assessment findings (e.g., changes to the assessment plan, changes to the curriculum, other changes to the program or unit, such as changes in technology, personnel, admission criteria, frequency of course offerings, advising).

Be sure to track any strategies for improvement you noted in previous years' assessment reports to gauge their effectiveness.

Assessment Reports are due either June 30 or December 30 of each year. The report details assessment activity that occurred during the previous academic year. Please consult with the Assistant Provost to identify your deadline for submitting reports each year. Whichever deadline (June 30 or December 30) is selected, it is important that a report is submitted at least once each year.

Either of the following may be submitted:

• an assessment report that details activity and results as outlined in your assessment plan.
• a report of assessment of student learning that has been submitted to an external/disciplinary accreditation body (ABET, AACSB, etc.), along with supplementary information that summarizes the outcomes assessment, direct and indirect measures used to assess outcomes, basic summary of findings, and strategies for improvement that are based on findings.

Please email a Word version of your assessment report to William Knight, Assistant Provost for Institutional Research and Effectiveness (knightw3@MiamiOH.edu) by your annual submission deadline.

The Assistant Provost for Institutional Research and Effectiveness and/or other members of the University Assessment Council will provide brief written feedback on departmental assessment reports as soon as possible after they are submitted. Feedback will be based upon the following rubric, although additional points and suggestions for next year’s report may be included.

Feedback on Departmental Assessment Activity

Department of:

July 2019

B.A./B.S. in:

Thank you for providing your annual program assessment report in June. The report’s learning goals are clear, lend themselves to measurement, and are consistent with those noted in the assessment plan and earlier annual assessment reports. Scoring samples of student work in several classes using rubrics is an excellent approach to assessment, but it would be helpful if the rubrics were included in the report. The findings clearly identify the number and percentage of students performing at each level of the rubrics for each learning outcome assessed this year, but it would be even more useful if more context and implications were provided. For example, are there patterns apparent for the writing goal in the capstone course? Were students who did better or worse those who showed similar performance when writing was assessed in the 100-level course? Did results differ according to which elective courses were taken or by other factors? Staff members in the Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness would be happy to have a conversation with you about data we can provide that might lend greater context to your findings. The results were shared in a faculty meeting, but it would be helpful to know more about what was concluded, what changes will take place as a result, etc. The report shows excellent follow-up from findings that were shared last year. Please see further details from the feedback rubric on the next page. Keep up the good work and please let me know how we can help. I look forward to receiving your next report in June 2020.

William E. Knight
Assistant Provost for Institutional Research and Effectiveness
Chair, University Assessment Council