Exhibit 2. Rubric – Major Program Assessment Reports
| 1. | Goals/Objectives: | Are they specific, measurable educational objectives |
| Not approved: | Objectives are ambiguous, vague, don’t relate to student learning, | |
| Conditionally approved: | Word like “should” is not measurable; need to replace with action verb like “will” | |
| Approved: | The degree of specificity of the objectives is very strong and delineates the scope of the outcomes. | |
| 2. | Activities/Courses | Meeting goals and objectives: |
| Not approved: | Specific courses/activities not identified for each goal/objective | |
| Conditionally approved: | Courses/activities identified for some of the goals/objectives. | |
| Approved: | Course(s) and/or activities are clearly identified for every goal/objective. | |
| 3. | Measures and Criteria | Utilized in determining the degree to which students are achieving goals/objectives: |
| Not approved: | There is no direct established link between the techniques and the objectives. There is no measure of direct assessment of learning outcomes. | |
| Conditionally approved: | There is a link between measures and learning objectives but criteria for evaluation not specified. | |
| Approved: | Multiple assessment measures have been identified which are linked to the learning objectives. Specific criteria for evaluation of direct assessment of the learning objectives are identified. | |
| 4. | Realistic Timetable: | A full-cycle of assessment is projected. |
| Not approved: | No timetable within which assessment of all learning objectives will occur. | |
| Conditionally approved: | Timetable proposed is either too long or realistically too ambitious. | |
| Approved: | A five year timetable for complete assessment that corresponds to either Accreditation review or 5 year BSC program review. |