UNDERGRADUATE/ FIRST PROFESSIONAL DEGREE/GRADUATE PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES - INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS

SECTION I: ASSESSMENT REPORT
Assessment of programmatic student learning outcome(s)

Program and degree(s) offered:       Curriculum map attached:

Program assessed in this report:            Yes; please note any changes in outcomes since the last report:
Department Chair:      
Form completed by:            No; please explain:
Reporting Year: 2016
URL for published learning outcomes (please complete URL): web.uri.edu/     

Results & Recommendations &

Outcome(s) Examined
Which program student
learning outcome(s) was
assessed during this reporting
period?
Data/Evidence
For each outcome, indicate what
data/evidence* (other than
grades) were used to determine
the impact of the change?
(Direct evidence is required;
indirect evidence is optional.)
Provide:
 type of artifact/evidence of
student learning*
 sample (include # of students
sampled; sample size relative
to the population; which
semesters; where in
curriculum the outcome was
assessed (in course(s),
section(s) or a program
requirement))
Evaluation Process
What method(s) or process(es)
were used to evaluate student
work?
Provide:
 evaluation tool or instrument
used to assess student work
(attach)**
 expected level of student
achievement of the outcome
 who applied the evaluation
tool and how was it used***
 who interpreted the results of
the evaluation process****
Reflection Planning
What were the results of the Are there recommendations
analysis of the assessment data? for change based on the
Provide: results?
 quantitative results, include a
comparison of expected level If yes:
of student achievement to Provide:
actual level of student  recommendation(s) for
achievement change(s) planned
 qualitative results if/when  timeline for program to
appropriate implement the change(s)
 analysis of the results  timeline for program to
including the identification of assess the impact of the
patterns of weakness or change(s)
strength
 reflection and conclusions If no, program expectations
about results met:
Indicate: N/A

(add more lines as needed)

URI Assessment Reporting Form is in compliance with NEASC and campus reporting requirements. Revised 4/2016

* For example: embedded questions in assignments or exams, presentations, thesis proposals, comprehensive exams, performances, capstone course, portfolio review, research paper, etc.
**For example: rubric, juried form, external evaluation
***For example: # of participating faculty, assessment committee, major professor, research/practicum supervisor (best practice is multiple participants)
****For example: # of participating faculty, assessment committee, chair, program director (best practice is multiple participants)
 UNDERGRADUATE/ FIRST PROFESSIONAL DEGREE/GRADUATE PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES - INVENTORY OF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS
SECTION II. ASSESSMENT RE-EVALUATION REPORT
Impact of change(s) based on previous assessment recommendations

Program and degree(s) offered:       Department Chair:      

Reporting Year: 2016 Form completed by:      

Follow-up on Prior Recommendations &

Outcome Data/Evidence Evaluation Process Results & Reflection
Recommendations Planning
Based on For each outcome For each outcome, indicate What method(s) or What were the results of the Overall, were the changes
previous identified, provide: what data/evidence* (other process(es) were used to analysis of the assessment effective?
assessment  a description of the than grades) were used to evaluate student work? data?
reports and recommended determine the impact of the Provide: Provide: If yes:
results, list change(s) in a prior change? (Direct evidence is  evaluation tool or  quantitative results, include Provide:
each student required; indirect evidence is instrument used to a comparison of expected  any additional plans or
report, and date report
learning optional.) assess student work level of student recommendations for
outcome(s) was submitted Provide: achievement to actual level follow-up
 whether the change (attach)**
identified for  type of artifact* of student achievement
was implemented, and  expected level of student
re-evaluation  sample (include # of  qualitative results if/when If no:
in 2015. if so, include date students sampled; sample achievement of the appropriate Provide:
size relative to the outcome  analysis of the results  recommendations for
(If an assessment process or  who applied the
population; which including the identification future plans to improve
structural program change
(curricular, faculty, etc.) was semesters; where in evaluation tool and how of patterns of weakness or student learning results
made, no further sections may curriculum the outcome was it used*** strength  date/timeline for action
need to be completed at this was assessed (in course(s),  who interpreted the  reflection and conclusions and re-assessment
time.) section(s) or a program results of the evaluation about results
requirement))
process****

(add more lines

as needed)

URI Assessment Reporting Form is in compliance with NEASC and campus reporting requirements. Revised 4/2016

* For example: embedded questions in assignments or exams, presentations, thesis proposals, comprehensive exams, performances, capstone course, portfolio review, research paper, etc.
**For example: rubric, juried form, external evaluation
***For example: # of participating faculty, assessment committee, major professor, research/practicum supervisor (best practice is multiple participants)
****For example: # of participating faculty, assessment committee, chair, program director (best practice is multiple participants)