Criteria for a Well-Developed Report

Your Program assessment report is how you document the full cycle — what you assessed, what you found, and what you did about it. This page explains exactly what peer reviewers look for so you can write a report that is clear, complete, and useful.

What reviewers look for — the 5 criteria

1. Clear, measurable learning outcomes

Needs improvementWell developed
“Students will understand global issues.”“Students will analyze global issues using multiple disciplinary perspectives.”
Outcomes are vague or describe attitudes rather than observable behaviorsOutcomes use action verbs and describe what students will be able to do
No indication of where outcomes are publicly postedOutcomes are posted on the program’s public website

2. Appropriate, direct evidence

Needs improvementWell developed
Only indirect evidence used (e.g., surveys, course evaluations)Direct evidence — actual student work — is the primary source
Evidence not clearly connected to the outcomes being assessedEvidence is drawn from required courses identified in the curriculum map
Sample size too small or not representativeSample is representative; size and selection method are documented

3. Consistent scoring with a shared rubric

Needs improvementWell developed
No rubric used — scoring is based on individual faculty judgmentA shared rubric was used by all faculty involved in scoring
Rubric dimensions do not align with the outcome being assessedRubric dimensions directly reflect the outcome’s key components
Only one faculty member scored the workMultiple faculty scored independently; results were discussed as a team

4. Meaningful interpretation of findings

Needs improvementWell developed
Results are reported as numbers only with no analysisResults are compared against a pre-set benchmark
No benchmark set — unclear what “good” looks likePatterns across dimensions are identified and discussed
Conclusions do not connect to the data presentedFaculty team’s interpretation is documented — not just the numbers
Only one faculty member interpreted findingsTeam of faculty members interpreted findings

5. Concrete action — “Closing the Loop“

Needs improvementWell developed
No action taken or recommendedAt least one specific, actionable change is documented
Action is vague: “We will continue to monitor.”Action is directly tied to what the data showed
Action is disconnected from the findingsA timeline or responsible party is identified

Finished? Return to the SLOAA homepage for more information or Program Assessment to continue your journey.

2 female and 1 male adult instructors sitting around a table in a conference room.