Â鶹´«Ã½AV

Part 1 collects general information about each department and asks departments to identify the individuals or groups (e.g., assessment coordinators or committees) responsible for overseeing assessment efforts. This section also captures information about the roles and responsibilities of those involved, how assessment data is gathered, reported, and shared, and how results are used within the department to inform decision-making and improvement.

The information provided by departments in this section will be used by the Office of the Provost to inform the University’s accreditation self-study () and to gain a clearer understanding of how departments organize and carry out assessment activities. This information will also be used by the Office of the Provost to develop more targeted guidance, tools, and resources to support departments in conducting meaningful assessment.

Section 1.1: Department Information

Respond to the following questions:

1. Department Chair/Director:
2. Department Assessment Coordinator:
3. Department Assessment Committee Members:
4. Undergraduate Degree Programs Offered:

Section 1.2: Department Assessment Structure

Faculty are central to the program assessment process (). This part of the assessment plan asks departments to indicate the procedures that ensure that faculty within the department are aware of assessment planning and results, with the goal of receiving input from faculty on improving student learning within the program.

Respond to the following questions in 1-3 sentences:

1. What is your department’s organizational structure for assessment? Do you have an assessment committee or is assessment folded into the responsibilities of another committee?
2. Who will be responsible for writing and submitting the annual report?
3. How will the results of annual program assessment be communicated to faculty within the department?
4. When will assessment results and potential modifications be discussed by faculty?

Per NWCCU policy, UNR is required to publish expected program learning outcomes (PLOs) for all degrees, certificates, and credentials (). To meet this requirement, the Provost requires that all degree programs create three to ten PLOs. These outcomes should be broad, measurable statements that clearly articulate the knowledge, skills, and competencies students are expected to achieve upon completion of the program. Additionally, in alignment with UNR’s Fundamental Proficiencies, each undergraduate program must include an outcome related to CO1 - Communication (designated with a ‘C’), an outcome related to CO2- Quantitative Reasoning (designated with a ‘QR’), and an outcome related to CO3 - Critical Thinking (designated with a ‘CT’).

This section of the Department Assessment & Improvement Plan asks departments to review their current PLOs to ensure they are current, are accurately reflected in the , provide a clear framework for curriculum design and instructional planning, convey instructional intent to students and faculty, and serve as a foundation for program-level assessment and continuous improvement. If revisions are necessary, departments are asked to explain the rationale for the revision (e.g., consolidating PLOs, rewriting PLOs to be more assessable, rewriting PLOs to be more aligned with program objectives). This section aligns with Phase 1 of the Continuous Improvement Assessment Cycle: Student Learning Outcomes.

Section 2.1: Program Learning Outcomes – Undergraduate

List all undergraduate programs offered within the department and their associated Program Learning Outcomes. Existing PLOs can be found in the

Resources:

Section 2.2: Program Learning Outcomes – Revisions

If applicable, respond to the following questions:

1. Are Program Learning Outcomes being revised?
2. If yes, explain why (e.g., consolidating PLOs, rewriting PLOs to be more assessable, rewriting PLOs to be more aligned with program objectives).

If necessary, update the Course Catalog using the 'Add or Revise Learning Outcomes for Current Program' proposal.

A curriculum map is a table or matrix that charts the relationship between the program learning outcomes (PLOs) and degree program courses. Curriculum maps allow programs to examine the breadth, depth, and sequencing of courses in programs and ensure that students have the opportunity to achieve mastery of all PLOs through a well-scaffolded curriculum. By explicitly identifying which PLOs are addressed in each course, programs can more easily determine whether the program addresses all learning outcomes in a balanced way or identify whether there are gaps or an overemphasis on any particular learning outcome. This process also makes it easier to examine the sequencing of courses throughout the program to ensure that there is coherence in the progression of learning experiences provided to students.

Using , departments are asked to create a curriculum map that, at a minimum, includes courses that reinforce and master the achievement of PLOs aligned with UNR’s Fundamental Proficiencies (i.e., communication, quantitative reasoning, and critical thinking).  These courses are referenced in the Assessment Planning section, where departments outline specific assessment measures and the timeline for evaluating student learning. Curriculum maps can also include required courses that introduce, reinforce, or master the achievement of the remaining Program Learning Outcomes as well as any Core designated courses offered/required within the department. If programs require courses offered by other departments, it may be necessary for programs to coordinate with other departments as they create Assessment & Improvement Plan. This step aligns with Phase 2 of the Continuous Improvement Assessment Cycle: Curriculum Mapping.

Section 3.1: Curriculum Mapping

Attach the Curriculum Map created in Watermark to the Assessment & Improvement Plan.

Resources:

• (presentation by Sarah Cummings, the Director of Advancements in Teaching Excellence)

Assessment Planning builds on Part 2: Program Learning Outcomes and Part 3: Curriculum Mapping. It focuses on the assessment of the PLOs designated with the University’s three Fundamental Proficiencies (i.e., Communication, Quantitative Reasoning, and Critical Thinking), which must be assessed at least once every three years. 

The Assessment Planning Chart developed in Section 4.1 is designed to guide departments in developing multi-year plan for assessing PLOs. Departments identify the specific courses where each PLO will be assessed, including those where the outcome is reinforced and those where mastery is achieved. For each selected course, departments then determine the assessment measures that will be used. The Assessment Plan supports the use of a variety of assessment types and the incorporation of both direct and indirect measures of student learning, including assignments, capstone projects, portfolios, exams, surveys, or other discipline-appropriate tools. Departments also establish expected performance thresholds for each measure and indicate the semester or academic year in which data collection and analysis will occur.

The Assessment Planning Chart serves as a roadmap to help departments develop a realistic and actionable plan that aligns with the structure of their program, makes efficient use of faculty time and existing assessment efforts, and promotes meaningful collaboration. It encourages departments to think strategically about when and how to engage in assessment. This structured approach supports a continuous cycle of evidence collection, analysis, and improvement, while strengthening documentation and enables departments to demonstrate the long-term impact of their efforts. Ultimately, it helps align course-level assessment with broader program and institutional goals. This step aligns with Phase 3 of the Continuous Improvement Assessment Cycle: Assessment Planning.

Section 4.1: Assessment Planning Chart 

In this section, departments will develop a detailed plan for assessing PLOs aligned with the Fundamental Proficiencies (CO1, CO2, CO3). This includes:

1. identifying the assessment measures and data sources that will be used to evaluate these PLOs
2. establishing performance thresholds to determine whether outcomes are successfully met
3. establishing an assessment timeline

Download and complete the for each program in your department. 

Importantly, your department has flexibility in designing this plan. To meet requirements, each Fundamental Proficiency (CO1, CO2, CO3) must be assessed in at least one reinforcing course and one mastery course every three years. Courses can also serve multiple functions—for example, a single culminating course may be the mastery course for all three fundamental proficiencies. Design your plan in a way that aligns with your program’s structure and goals.

Note: If program curriculums have substantial overlap, the same or slightly modified chart can be used for multiple programs.

Resources:

Section 4.2: Evaluation Criteria

Assessment plans must include assessments rubrics and/or evaluation criteria (i.e., the methodology of how student artifacts will be assessed). Rubrics should clearly define the criteria and methodology for assessing student work and how the assessment will be used to measure progress toward achieving the PLOs.

Create or identify a rubric (or specific rubric items) for each Fundamental Proficiency to ensure that student learning in these skills is systematically evaluated. These rubrics should clearly define the criteria for assessing student work, align with program learning outcomes, and provide measurable indicators of student progress.  In some cases, an assessment rubric can address multiple PLOs.

Programs with specialized accreditation may use their own rubrics to align with discipline-specific standards and requirements.

Resources:

The final section of the Department Assessment & Improvement Plan prompts departments to reflect on the effectiveness of their current assessment practices through the completion of a . This section provides an opportunity for departments to critically reflect on their assessment practices and identify areas for continuous improvement. Departments are asked to rate themselves on how well assessment is planned and implemented, the extent to which learning outcomes are meaningfully aligned with course-level activities, and how data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted. It also asks departments to consider how results are communicated, used to guide curricular decision-making, and integrated into broader conversations about teaching and learning. This reflection highlights areas of strength, while identifying potential gaps, inefficiencies, or missed opportunities within the current assessment process, ultimately supporting the development of a more integrated and evidence-based approach to assessment.

Based on their evaluation, departments are asked to establish two overarching goals for strengthening their assessment practices during the next three-year cycle. These goals should reflect an honest appraisal of current capacity while promoting meaningful and feasible improvement. In some cases, this might involve increasing faculty engagement, improving the design or use of evaluation rubrics, or making better use of results to inform curricular change. In others, the focus may be on building systems that allow for more consistent data collection or better alignment between program learning outcomes and course-level assessments. The goal setting process encourages departments prioritize actions that enhance the long-term effectiveness and impact of assessment. 

Information gathered through this section will be used in multiple ways at the institutional level. Aggregated results will help identify shared needs and shape future professional development opportunities. Additionally, the process will support accreditation efforts by providing evidence of targeted improvements and demonstrating a campus-wide commitment to quality assessment. 

Section 5.1: Self-Evaluation Rubric

This section provides an opportunity for departments to critically reflect on their assessment practices and identify areas for continuous improvement. As you complete this section, consider how assessment findings inform decision-making and contribute to meaningful program enhancements.

Download, complete, and upload the

Based on the results of the Self-Evaluation, create two general assessment goals.

• Examples of possible goals:
  • Increase faculty participation in the assessment process.
  • Improve the alignment between PLOs and course-level SLOs and assessments.
  • Develop or refine rubrics for more consistent evaluation of student learning.
  • Strengthen the use of assessment results in curriculum planning or program review.

Resources: