Timeline	Action
May 1^st of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due Mid-August 1^st day that Faculty Reports of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due (for second attempts only)	Office of Assessment and Accreditation will provide the following documents to course leader (CC: Chair) for all courses with Quadrennial Reports due 1^st Monday of October of current year: - Copy of course’s last GEC approved Quadrennial Report - Blank Quadrennial Report form - Exemplar Report from approved (and permission-provided) course - Enrollment Data (for last 4 years) Report from IR Email correspondence will include an opportunity for faculty to meet with Office of Accreditation and Assessment during the summer and/or the first chance for the Office to provide course’s assessment data (through LMS, Essay Repository, or analysis through other means)
September 15^th of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	GEC Chair will email course leaders with Quadrennial Reports due with final reminder
1^st Monday of October of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	Quadrennial Reports Due
1^st Friday of October of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	Any missing reports’ course leaders will be contacted by GEC Chair
October-1^st Week of November of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	All Quadrennial Reports will be assigned to a Subcommittee (peer faculty with no conflict-of-interest), reviewed and recommendations made to larger GEC
November 15^th of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	Course leaders, Chairs and Deans will be notified of GEC decision. Report authors will be given 1 of 3 decisions: 1. Accept Report (Formal Vote by GEC) 2. Accept Report with Modifications, all modifications would be due back to GEC by Study Day (early December); Course Leaders (faculty and/or chair) will be advised to meet with Office of Accreditation and Assessment to complete any outstanding issues identified by GEC Subcommittee. These modifications can be in the form of questions posed by subcommittee for clarity (and communicated to the department by the subcommittee chair), or modification requests to data/information presented (Tabled Vote by GEC) 3. Interim Report Requested; Course report would need significant work and would be presented with a timeline for completion that would not extend beyond current Academic Year (Tabled Vote by GEC)
Study Day of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	Any Reports that had modifications requested will return answers/edits to GEC. Subcommittee will review, and recommendation made to GEC. Formal Vote could be made during mid-December GEC or by email.
Prior to conclusion of Fall Semester of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	GEC Chair will contact all Course Leaders/Chairs/Deans with formal GEC decision for each course
January-March of academic year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	Any course with an Interim Report requested will meet with Office of Accreditation and Assessment for assistance in data collection, analysis, reporting and editing.
March 30^th of academic year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	If Interim Report is requested in Fall, Course Leader/Chair will provide to GEC: Modified Report with new/updated data (including Fall data from course if requested)
April of academic year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	Subcommittee will review Interim Report(s) and provide recommendation to GEC; Formal Vote in GEC for any/all Interim Reports
Prior to conclusion of Spring Semester of academic year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due	GEC Chair will contact all Course Leaders/Chairs/Deans with formal GEC decision for each course with an Interim Report

Timeline

Action

May 1^st of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due Mid-August 1^st day that Faculty Reports of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due (for second attempts only)

**Office of Assessment and Accreditation** will provide the following documents to course leader (CC: Chair) for all courses with Quadrennial Reports due 1^st Monday of October of current year: - Copy of course’s last GEC approved Quadrennial Report - Blank Quadrennial Report form - Exemplar Report from approved (and permission-provided) course - **Enrollment Data (for last 4 years) Report from IR** Email correspondence will include an opportunity for faculty to meet with Office of Accreditation and Assessment during the summer and/or the first chance for the Office to provide course’s assessment data (through LMS, Essay Repository, or analysis through other means)

September 15^th of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

**GEC Chair** will email course leaders with Quadrennial Reports due with final reminder

1^st Monday of October of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

**Quadrennial Reports Due**

1^st Friday of October of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

Any missing reports’ course leaders will be contacted by **GEC Chair**

October-1^st Week of November of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

All Quadrennial Reports will be assigned to a Subcommittee (peer faculty with no conflict-of-interest), reviewed and recommendations made to larger GEC

November 15^th of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

Course leaders, Chairs and Deans will be notified of GEC decision. Report authors will be given 1 of 3 decisions: 1. Accept Report (Formal Vote by GEC) 2. Accept Report with Modifications, all modifications would be due back to GEC by Study Day (early December); Course Leaders (faculty and/or chair) will be advised to meet with Office of Accreditation and Assessment to complete any outstanding issues identified by GEC Subcommittee. These modifications can be in the form of questions posed by subcommittee for clarity (and communicated to the department by the subcommittee chair), or modification requests to data/information presented (Tabled Vote by GEC) 3. Interim Report Requested; Course report would need significant work and would be presented with a timeline for completion that would not extend beyond current Academic Year (Tabled Vote by GEC)

Study Day of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

Any Reports that had modifications requested will return answers/edits to GEC. Subcommittee will review, and recommendation made to GEC. Formal Vote could be made during mid-December GEC or by email.

Prior to conclusion of Fall Semester of year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

**GEC Chair** will contact all Course Leaders/Chairs/Deans with formal GEC decision for each course

January-March of academic year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

Any course with an Interim Report requested will meet with Office of Accreditation and Assessment for assistance in data collection, analysis, reporting and editing.

March 30^th of academic year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

If Interim Report is requested in Fall, Course Leader/Chair will provide to GEC: Modified Report with new/updated data (including Fall data from course if requested)

April of academic year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

Subcommittee will review Interim Report(s) and provide recommendation to GEC; Formal Vote in GEC for any/all Interim Reports

Prior to conclusion of Spring Semester of academic year that course’s Quadrennial Report is due

**GEC Chair** will contact all Course Leaders/Chairs/Deans with formal GEC decision for each course with an Interim Report

The Office of Accreditation and Assessment maintains current assessment calendars, reporting schedules, and review timelines in SharePoint. These documents are updated as needed and should be considered the official source for current deadlines and reporting cycles.

Access the latest General Education Quadrennial Review Calendar for information on current review cycles, reporting years, and formal report deadlines for General Education courses.

	Exemplary	Good	Developing	Needs Improvement
Outcomes
Learning Outcomes	Instructions: The Learning Outcomes for General Education are determined by the General Education Committee and may be reviewed here: (Link). While reviewers will not evaluate these outcomes, they should review them for context before evaluating the quadrennial reports.
Connection	Connection from course to general education is clearly expressed.	Connection from course to general education is loosely expressed.	Connection from course to general education is unclear.	No connection from course to general education.
Methods
Outcome-Method Alignment	Clearly defined alignment between the outcome(s) and selected method(s) as described in the report.	Somewhat clearly defined alignment between the outcome(s) and selected method(s) as described in the report.	Alignment between outcome(s) and method(s) is not clear.	No evidence of alignment between outcome(s) and method(s).
Method & Method Type	Method(s) are clear; have face validity for specific purpose and student learning; use both direct and indirect method(s).	Method(s) are clear; have face validity for specific purpose and student learning; use ONLY direct OR indirect method(s).	Method(s) are clear; lack face validity for specific purpose OR student learning; use ONLY direct OR indirect method(s).	Method(s) lack clarity; lack face validity for specific purpose OR student learning; use ONLY direct OR indirect method(s).
Method Target	Clear student-focused target (i.e., rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). Rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.).	Clear student-focused target; target is not delimited (i.e., lacks rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). Rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.).	Clear student-focused target; target is not delimited (i.e., lacks rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). No rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.).	Unclear target OR not student-focused target; target is not delimited (i.e., lacks rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). No rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.).
Findings
Data Reported (e.g., data collection/method of sampling, item analysis, frequency counts, instrument norming statistics, etc.)	Results presented include explanation of data collection method, sample size, background of students, item analysis, frequency counts, instrument norming where appropriate, etc.	Results presented include most of the following: explanation of data collection method, sample size, background of students, item analysis, frequency counts, instrument norming where appropriate, etc.	Results presented include some of the following: explanation of data collection method, sample size, background of students, item analysis, frequency counts, instrument norming where appropriate, etc.and/or the data reported is not clearly connected to the outcome.	Results are not presented, or the data reported does not connect to the outcome.
Analysis & Reflection	Interpretation of results clearly presented and appropriate based on analysis of the data; if possible, combines analysis of direct and indirect measures.	Interpretation of results is somewhat clear and appropriate based on analysis of the data.	Interpretation of results is unclear or inappropriate based on analysis of the data.	Interpretation of results not reported.
Action Plan	Clearly identifies plans for action based on assessment results, including timeline for implementation and persons responsible for implementation; action plans may include the following scenarios: 1) Target Exceeded—Consider longitudinal data and whether the assessment method should change, 2) Target Met—Continue to monitor over an identified timeline, 3) Target Not Met—Improvement Plan articulated, OR recognition of invalid/unreliable assessment process changes needed.	Evidence of plans for action tied to assessment results, but may not identify a timeline for implementation or persons responsible for implementation and/or all possible scenarios of assessment results.	Evidence of plans for action not clearly tied to assessment results and does not identify a timeline for implementation or all scenarios of assessment results.	Does not specify plans for action based on assessment results.
Evidence (e.g., raw data, rubrics, meeting minutes, student artifacts (free of all identifying information), etc.)	Sufficient evidence is provided to corroborate all data reported, such as rubrics; spreadsheets with rubric scores; interrater reliability information; aggregated test/item analysis; test psychometric statistics; disaggregated test/item analysis by groups of students with relevant characteristics; licensure exam scores; surveys; survey results; focus group themes/transcripts; meeting minutes; advisory board feedback or analysis; etc. Evidence is a mixture of direct and indirect measures. Findings are disaggregated by modality. This is true for ALL findings.	Supporting evidence provided is linked to data, but partially substantiates data reported and is a mixture of direct and indirect measures; this is true for MOST findings. Findings are disaggregated by modality.	The link between finding and supporting evidence is difficult to determine; this is true for SOME findings. There is not a mixture of direct and indirect measures. Findings are disaggregated by modality.	No substantiating evidence provided.
Quadrennial Summary
Overall Action Plan for Next Quadrennial Cycle	Clearly identifies plans for action based on cumulative assessment results, including timeline for implementation and persons responsible for implementation.	Evidence of plans for action tied to assessment results but may not identify a timeline for implementation or persons responsible for implementation.	Evidence of plans for action not clearly tied to assessment results and does not identify a timeline for implementation or persons responsible for implementation.	No specified plans for action based on assessment results.

Exemplary

Good

Developing

Needs Improvement

**Outcomes**

**Learning Outcomes**

Instructions: The Learning Outcomes for General Education are determined by the General Education Committee and may be reviewed here: (Link). While reviewers will not evaluate these outcomes, they should review them for context before evaluating the quadrennial reports.

**Connection**

Connection from course to general education is clearly expressed.

Connection from course to general education is loosely expressed.

Connection from course to general education is unclear.

No connection from course to general education.

**Methods**

**Outcome-Method Alignment**

Clearly defined alignment between the outcome(s) and selected method(s) as described in the report.

Somewhat clearly defined alignment between the outcome(s) and selected method(s) as described in the report.

Alignment between outcome(s) and method(s) is not clear.

No evidence of alignment between outcome(s) and method(s).

**Method & Method Type**

Method(s) are clear; have face validity for specific purpose and student learning; use both direct and indirect method(s).

Method(s) are clear; have face validity for specific purpose and student learning; use ONLY direct OR indirect method(s).

Method(s) are clear; lack face validity for specific purpose OR student learning; use ONLY direct OR indirect method(s).

Method(s) lack clarity; lack face validity for specific purpose OR student learning; use ONLY direct OR indirect method(s).

**Method Target**

Clear student-focused target (i.e., rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). Rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.).

Clear student-focused target; target is not delimited (i.e., lacks rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). Rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.).

Clear student-focused target; target is not delimited (i.e., lacks rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). No rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.).

Unclear target OR not student-focused target; target is not delimited (i.e., lacks rubric percentages by category; overall test and item performance; licensure exam scores; etc.). No rationale for choosing target is articulated (e.g., based on local standards, historical trends, external standards, etc.).

**Findings**

**Data Reported (e.g., data collection/method of sampling, item analysis, frequency counts, instrument norming statistics, etc.)**

Results presented include explanation of data collection method, sample size, background of students, item analysis, frequency counts, instrument norming where appropriate, etc.

Results presented include most of the following: explanation of data collection method, sample size, background of students, item analysis, frequency counts, instrument norming where appropriate, etc.

Results presented include some of the following: explanation of data collection method, sample size, background of students, item analysis, frequency counts, instrument norming where appropriate, etc.and/or the data reported is not clearly connected to the outcome.

Results are not presented, or the data reported does not connect to the outcome.

**Analysis & Reflection**

Interpretation of results clearly presented and appropriate based on analysis of the data; if possible, combines analysis of direct and indirect measures.

Interpretation of results is somewhat clear and appropriate based on analysis of the data.

Interpretation of results is unclear or inappropriate based on analysis of the data.

Interpretation of results not reported.

**Action Plan**

Clearly identifies plans for action based on assessment results, including timeline for implementation and persons responsible for implementation; action plans may include the following scenarios: 1) Target Exceeded—Consider longitudinal data and whether the assessment method should change, 2) Target Met—Continue to monitor over an identified timeline, 3) Target Not Met—Improvement Plan articulated, OR recognition of invalid/unreliable assessment process changes needed.

Evidence of plans for action tied to assessment results, but may not identify a timeline for implementation or persons responsible for implementation and/or all possible scenarios of assessment results.

Evidence of plans for action not clearly tied to assessment results and does not identify a timeline for implementation or all scenarios of assessment results.

Does not specify plans for action based on assessment results.

**Evidence (e.g., raw data, rubrics, meeting minutes, student artifacts (free of all identifying information), etc.)**

Sufficient evidence is provided to corroborate all data reported, such as rubrics; spreadsheets with rubric scores; interrater reliability information; aggregated test/item analysis; test psychometric statistics; disaggregated test/item analysis by groups of students with relevant characteristics; licensure exam scores; surveys; survey results; focus group themes/transcripts; meeting minutes; advisory board feedback or analysis; etc. Evidence is a mixture of direct and indirect measures. Findings are disaggregated by modality. This is true for ALL findings.

Supporting evidence provided is linked to data, but partially substantiates data reported and is a mixture of direct and indirect measures; this is true for MOST findings. Findings are disaggregated by modality.

The link between finding and supporting evidence is difficult to determine; this is true for SOME findings. There is not a mixture of direct and indirect measures. Findings are disaggregated by modality.

No substantiating evidence provided.

**Quadrennial Summary**

**Overall Action Plan for Next Quadrennial Cycle**

Clearly identifies plans for action based on cumulative assessment results, including timeline for implementation and persons responsible for implementation.

Evidence of plans for action tied to assessment results but may not identify a timeline for implementation or persons responsible for implementation.

Evidence of plans for action not clearly tied to assessment results and does not identify a timeline for implementation or persons responsible for implementation.

No specified plans for action based on assessment results.