{"id":24162,"date":"2026-06-03T14:09:20","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T18:09:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/?page_id=24162"},"modified":"2026-09-02T12:13:02","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T16:13:02","slug":"criteria-for-a-well-developed-report","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/criteria-for-a-well-developed-report\/","title":{"rendered":"Criteria for a Well-Developed Report"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n

Your Program assessment report<\/strong> is how you document the full cycle \u2014 what you assessed, what you found, and what you did about it. This page explains exactly what peer reviewers look for<\/strong> so you can write a report that is clear, complete, <\/strong>and useful<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What reviewers look for \u2014 the 5 criteria<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

1. Clear, measurable learning outcomes<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Needs improvement<\/strong><\/th>Well developed<\/strong><\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
“Students will understand global issues.”<\/em><\/td>“Students will analyze global issues using multiple disciplinary perspectives.”<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Outcomes are vague or describe attitudes rather than observable behaviors<\/td>Outcomes use action verbs and describe what students will be able to do<\/td><\/tr>
No indication of where outcomes are publicly posted<\/td>Outcomes are posted on the program’s public website<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

2. Appropriate, direct evidence<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Needs improvement<\/strong><\/th>Well developed<\/strong><\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Only indirect evidence used (e.g., surveys, course evaluations)<\/td>Direct evidence \u2014 actual student work \u2014 is the primary source<\/td><\/tr>
Evidence not clearly connected to the outcomes being assessed<\/td>Evidence is drawn from required courses identified in the curriculum map<\/td><\/tr>
Sample size too small or not representative<\/td>Sample is representative; size and selection method are documented<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

3. Consistent scoring with a shared rubric<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Needs improvement<\/strong><\/th>Well developed<\/strong><\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
No rubric used \u2014 scoring is based on individual faculty judgment<\/td>A shared rubric was used by all faculty involved in scoring<\/td><\/tr>
Rubric dimensions do not align with the outcome being assessed<\/td>Rubric dimensions directly reflect the outcome’s key components<\/td><\/tr>
Only one faculty member scored the work<\/td>Multiple faculty scored independently; results were discussed as a team<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

4. Meaningful interpretation of findings<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Needs improvement<\/strong><\/th>Well developed<\/strong><\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
Results are reported as numbers only with no analysis<\/td>Results are compared against a pre-set benchmark<\/td><\/tr>
No benchmark set \u2014 unclear what “good” looks like<\/td>Patterns across dimensions are identified and discussed<\/td><\/tr>
Conclusions do not connect to the data presented<\/td>Faculty team’s interpretation is documented \u2014 not just the numbers<\/td><\/tr>
Only one faculty member interpreted findings<\/td>Team of faculty members interpreted findings<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

5. Concrete action \u2014 “Closing the Loop<\/strong>“<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Needs improvement<\/strong><\/th>Well developed<\/strong><\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
No action taken or recommended<\/td>At least one specific, actionable change is documented<\/td><\/tr>
Action is vague: “We will continue to monitor.”<\/em><\/td>Action is directly tied to what the data showed<\/td><\/tr>
Action is disconnected from the findings<\/td>A timeline or responsible party is identified<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Finished? Return to the SLOAA homepage<\/a> for more information or Program Assessment <\/a>to continue your journey.<\/p>\n\n\n

\"2<\/figure>
\n\n

Need Help? <\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Email assess@uri.edu<\/a> with any questions.<\/p>\n\n\nsCHEDULE A CONSULTATION <\/a>\n<\/article><\/div><\/section>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Your Program assessment report is how you document the full cycle \u2014 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 \u2014 the 5 criteria 1. Clear, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5490,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"class_list":["post-24162","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5490"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24162"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24162\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25666,"href":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24162\/revisions\/25666"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.uri.edu\/atl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}