Assessment Plan For Academic Programs Leading To An HCT Credential

The methods is an important section of the research paper. It allows the reader to judge the validity of your research because it describes
- The type of your research and the how it was carried out.
- Why and how the data were collected.
- Why and how the data were analyzed, and interpreted.
- How the data contributed to answer your research questions.
- How the reliability and validity of sources were assessed.

Requirements: for every academic program leading to a HCT credential:

• Eachprogramme learning outcome is to be assessed at least once over a three year 
• Aminimum of 30% of programme learning outcomes must be assessed each academic

For each program/major, the Academic Division:

1. Developsa long term assessment plan to provide evidence of student achievement of each programme learning outcome over a 3-year 
2. Submitsthe plan for endorsement by Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs prior to implementation by April 14.

Note: Any subsequent changes to assessment plans will require prior approval from the Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs.

Academic Divisions select the most valid assessments to be used as evidence of student achievement of programme learning outcomes from year 3 or year 4 BAS courses, and from year 2 of standalone Diploma courses.

The Mapping of CLO to PLO reports available from CurricUNET are a useful guide for identifying appropriate courses to obtain evidence of student achievement of each PLO.

Best practice indicates that Division’s should identify a number of different assessment tasks to provide for a wider sampling of student learning allowing students to demonstrate a wider range of knowledge, skills and competencies than can be observed from reliance on a single form of assessment such as a written examination.

The designated assessment must provide sufficient depth and scope to produce valid evidence of student achievement of the targeted programme learning outcome. In cases where no single assessment is sufficient, a number of assessment may be designated.

Each designated assessment becomes a common assessment i.e. the assessment instrument (oral defence, portfolio, project, report, test etc.), marking scheme or rubric, grading and standards of achievement are the same for all students taking the assessment across the system.

A minimum of 30% of programme learning outcomes from each program are assessed each academic year.

Each PLO is assessed by a:

• Directassessment in a required course such as a final assessment, capstone project, external assessment 
• Commonassessment instrument (oral defense, portfolio, project, report, test ), marking scheme/rubric, grading system, moderation process, 
• and standards of achievement.

Academic Divisions must ensure that the following are kept for example in the relevant electronic Course File:

• Copiesof the assessment instrument
• Marking scheme/rubric
• Detailsof moderation process
• Samplesof student work reflecting the range of performance -­? wherever possible
• Quantitative analysis of results

Gradebook has a facility to create sub-assessment for each course assessment which can be used to generate Portal reports on student achievement of learning outcomes.

In order to provide valid data for each PLO for identifying specific strengths and weaknesses in students learning, ensure that:

• Each sub-assessment assesses a singlePLO
• A discrete set of questions, tasks or rubric criteria within the assessment is identified for each PLO i.e. a question/task/rubric criterion aligns to only one

Instructions for using the facility are provided in the Gradebook User Guide refer to section ‘Managing Assessment Strategies’.

• Designatethe assessment - identifying the course and assessment to be used
• Identify the assessment components to be used i.e. the entireassessment or part of
• Thedefault target for each PLO is that 80% of students will attain Satisfactory (Grade C) on the  Proposed changes to the default target 
• together with a supporting rationale should be submitted for approval to the Dean Programme & Curriculum  
• Submit the plan to Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs for endorsement
• Recordresults on Gradebook  (Note: Gradebook now has a facility to map Final Assessment to programme learning outcomes)
• Interpretresults
• Reportany actions or recommendations to improve performance (‘closing the loop’):

1. Ifperformance standard is met, use result to demonstrate the objective has been achieved
2. Ifperformance standard is not met, explain what actions will be taken to improve performance
3. Ifthe plan itself needs to change, explain the change

• Assessown

Illustration

Annual PLO Assessment Plan

The Academic Division provides details of the PLO assessments in the ‘Annual Programme Learning Outcome Assessment Plan & Report’ template up to an including ‘Target’ as illustrated below and submits to Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs for endorsement.

Notes

1. Evidence:if it is not possible to specify which components of the assessment will be used, enter ‘TBC’ (to be confirmed). Update IE when the components are 
2. Target:the same target applies across all campuses to ensure consistency of  Changes from the default target require a rationale and approval from DVCAA.

After the assessments have been administered and analyzed, the academic division completes the template by system and by campus as illustrated below:

1. System/Campus: insert a new row for each campus administering the assessment
2. Result:results from each individual campus to be reported as evidence of comparable achievement across the 
3. Interpretation:to be completed for the System and separately by each campus
4. Action/ Recommendation: to be completed for the System and separately by each campus
5. Self?Rating:rating to be given for the System and separately by each campus using the statement and scale below

Indicate your level of agreement (using the scale: 1 – 5) with the following statement:

“The evidence indicates that the level of achievement of the PLO meets the Academic Division’s expectations.”