Home
Guide Overview
How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level

How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level

Version 2024.1

Description
Benefits
Effective Practices
Resources
Evidence

Program-level assessment of student learning is a cyclic process in which departments or programs gather direct information about the extent to which students are achieving the goals or learning outcomes the program is designed for them to meet and then modify the program based on the assessment results. This section provides guidance for departments on how to conduct assessment of student learning in undergraduate physics programs using a process consistent with typical requirements of institutions and institutional accreditors, as well as how to ensure that this assessment supports improvement of your department. This process includes evaluating attainment of

through

tied to one or more specific outcomes. This is done by evaluating selected pieces of student work (known in the assessment literature as artifacts) based on these measures, often against a

, to determine how well students in your program are meeting the program’s learning outcomes.

Learning assessment is one important part of an overall evaluation of a program’s health, which one might do for a complete program review, as discussed in the section on How to Undertake an Undergraduate Program Review, or for other reasons. Healthy departments use learning assessment to identify areas of quality and areas for growth and improvement. Learning assessment is a process for improving overall student learning in your program, not for measuring the performance of individual

members or departmental quality.

This section provides a brief primer on assessment of student learning at the program level for department chairs and faculty. Outcomes-based assessment of aggregated student learning is a dynamic process with three important stages:

Defining the most important goals, commonly known as student learning outcomes, for students to achieve as a result of completing your program.
Evaluating how well students are meeting those outcomes by developing and implementing an
Assessment Plan
A plan for assessing student learning at the program level that includes:
defined program-level student learning outcomes
a curriculum map that describes where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
a reasonable timetable that determines when and where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
periodic reflection on the results and the process to inform curricular and programmatic planning and decisions
for student learning.
Using the assessment results to improve your program, also known as
, a critical step.

The essential elements of a plan for assessment of student learning at the program level include defining

; creating a

that describes where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed; creating a reasonable timetable that determines when and where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed; and periodically reflecting on the results and the process to inform curricular and programmatic planning and decisions. This section addresses each of these elements.

For examples of how to implement the guidance in this section, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning. This section provides a glossary of many assessment-related terms, which you can see by hovering over underlined terms. Readers of this section may find it helpful to review the glossary terms before reading the section. The section on Implementing Research-Based Instructional Practices provides general pedagogical guidance as well as guidance on how to design and assess courses based on

Benefits

Student learning assessment is a deliberate, reflective, spiral process designed to increase student learning and support

requirements. By dynamically aligning student learning outcomes with how your program supports student learning, you can more clearly articulate what you want students to learn and improve student achievement of your articulated outcomes. This ongoing, collaborative effort to strengthen your program to help students succeed can support a sense of shared vision, effort, and achievement among your department members.

Assessment activities can lead to improved student learning and growth; inspire

conversations on how, what, and why they teach; identify issues in your program, curriculum, and/or individual courses; help instructional staff see how courses link together; ensure that your program is cohesive, well-structured, and focused on thoughtfully constructed, institution-specific

; inform resource allocation decisions; and provide a rationale for programmatic changes. The information gathered while conducting learning assessment can be used to support program reviews and is required for accreditation of your institution.

The Cycle of Reflection and Action

Where are you and what are you trying to accomplish?

Who should be involved?

What will you do?

How did it go and what comes next?

To be intentional about change, a department must have a clear understanding of its present situation and a vision for what it would like to become. Our cycle of self-reflection questions will help your department start conversations and structure thinking about how to get from where you are to where you want to be.

The Cycle of Reflection and Action will help you put the EP3 Guide to work for your department.

Learn more about the Cycle of Reflection and Action and how it can help your department.

Effective Practices

Engage your program or department in assessment of student learning
1. Ensure that your departmental leadership and
  understand assessment as defined in the Description above and in our definition of
  . Hover over underlined terms throughout this section for definitions from our glossary of assessment-related terms.
  Design your program-level assessment of student learning to both benefit students in your program and satisfy
  requirements for your institution. Work to align these goals so you do not have to duplicate efforts or do activities for accreditation that don’t directly support your department.
  Make assessment part of a holistic reflective process driving programmatic planning and decision making. Use both
  and
  to get a more complete picture of student learning in your department, while recognizing that the data collected may be imperfect or incomplete. Don’t let perfection stand in the way of progress.
  Ensure that the learning assessment process provides information about how well your program’s curriculum is helping students meet the program’s objectives, informing decisions about changes to the program and providing concrete evidence about the effectiveness of previous changes.
  Determine whether your teaching and learning center or another institutional office has staff who can support your department with assessment resources and/or facilitating planning and education sessions.
2. Engage
  in conversations about the usefulness of assessment activities. For example, discuss how assessment activities can lead to improved student learning and growth; inspire instructional staff conversations on how, what, and why they teach; identify issues in your program, curriculum, and/or individual courses; help instructional staff see how courses link together; ensure that your program is cohesive, well-structured, and focused on thoughtfully constructed, institution-specific
  ; inform resource allocation decisions; and provide a rationale for programmatic changes.
  Articulate the necessity of student learning assessment for meeting institutional
  requirements.
Design a plan for assessment of student learning
1. Approach development of your
  with the mindset of creating the simplest plan possible that results in effective assessment of
  . Avoid the common pitfall of designing a plan that is overly burdensome. Keep it simple and manageable while still tracking the information needed to evaluate the effectiveness of changes to your program.
  Integrate learning assessment into existing course and program elements (e.g., designated elements of assignments, projects, exams, and capstone experiences) rather than creating new activities exclusively for outcomes assessment. Make discussions about assessment a part of routine departmental activities.
  Enable your plan to evolve as your department gains experience with what constitutes valuable evidence of student progress toward your
  , and how to efficiently collect such evidence. Resist the tendency to over-design up front; do enough to get started and refine as you go.
  Minimize the number of student learning outcomes being assessed in any given year to make the effort sustainable over a period of years.
2. Familiarize your department with any institutional requirements and procedures concerning learning assessment, e.g., timetables, deadlines, reporting templates or formats, how often each
  must be assessed, institutionally required student learning outcomes, and which documents must be publicly accessible.
  Learn about any institutional systems (e.g., processes or software) for collecting, recording, saving, and reporting assessment of student learning.
  Learn about the specific requirements of your institution’s
  agency concerning assessment of student learning.
  Integrate assessment of
  for institutional general education requirements in courses taught in your department into your departmental
  as appropriate to minimize duplication of effort.
3. Establish a group of
  to supervise development of your
  , including development of all relevant documents. These include your
  (see D below),
  (see E below), timetable for assessment of your learning outcomes (see F below), and possibly also the
  for attainment of the learning outcomes. In small departments, this group might comprise the entire department.
  Establish a group of
  to supervise implementation of your plan, discuss results, and make recommendations based on those results for discussion with the rest of your department. In small departments, this group might comprise the entire department. This group may or may not be the same as the group that develops the plan. If possible, regularly rotate the group membership to educate more department members about assessment and share the work.
  Ensure that the group(s) developing and implementing your assessment plan represent diverse perspectives within your department and involve members of all ranks and appointment types, e.g., tenured and pre-tenure faculty, full- and part-time instructors, and adjuncts. At the same time, avoid overburdening new faculty or people from
  .
  Assign an individual faculty or staff member, e.g., the chair of the team responsible for implementing the plan, to be the point person to organize collecting results from
  .
  Recognize that the leaders of program-level assessment will need to spend a substantial amount of time and energy planning assessment activities and related learning opportunities, analyzing results, reporting results to the necessary institutional committees and accreditation agencies, and modifying the curriculum based on the assessment results. Ensure that this work is recognized and compensated as a significant part of assessment leaders’ jobs.
  Make clear that all
  are expected to carry out the assessment of the
  that your assessment plan designates for the courses they teach.
4. Use the development of
  as an opportunity for your department to collectively reflect on and articulate its most important goals for your students.
  Form a representative group of
  to develop
  with regular input from the rest of your department.
  Define the high-level skills and knowledge you expect students to be able to demonstrate they possess as a consequence of completing each of your degree programs, e.g., BA, BS, and minor.
  agencies typically require individual assessment of student learning for each distinct degree (and, in some cases, minor) offered.
  Align these high-level expectations with both your department’s and your institution’s foundational documents, e.g., mission statements, vision statements, values statements, and strategic plans. See the sections on How to Create And Use Foundational Documents and How to Create and Use a Strategic Plan for details.
  Distill these expectations into the four to six most important learning outcomes for each degree program. These are the
  for each program. Avoid the tendency to create too many learning outcomes. Ensure that the statements of the outcomes are brief, high-level descriptions. Outcomes are often accompanied by lists of
  describing the kinds of evidence that can be assessed by a
  to show that students are achieving the outcome; see E.vii–ix, below. For examples, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning.
  Consider whether any
  specified for courses required for the program are naturally aligned with corresponding
  (e.g., outcomes involving oral or written communication) in order to ensure that courses support student attainment of program-level student learning outcomes and to minimize duplication of assessment effort.
  Post
  on your department web site. This is required by many accreditors.
5. Create a simplified
  that defines when and where in the curriculum each
  will be assessed. See the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning for examples of such curriculum maps. In the process of designing a curriculum, you may also use a curriculum map to define all the learning opportunities in the curriculum that address each outcome, but this is beyond the scope of program-level assessment of student learning.
  Approach development of your simplified
  with the mindset of creating the simplest possible
  that results in effective assessment of program outcomes without being overly burdensome.
  Use your simplified
  to ensure that all
  are adequately supported by the curriculum.
  Identify in which courses or other curricular elements (e.g., research experiences, seminars, internships, service learning, clubs, or outreach) each of your
  will be assessed. Assess each outcome vertically (that is, in multiple class years) through your curriculum in order to track development of student mastery of the outcome as students progress through your program. For example, a plan might assess each outcome at two or three distinct developmental stages. See the guidance on how to establish a manageable timetable for assessment of your program learning outcomes.
  If you assess
  in courses taken by both physics majors and non-majors, ensure that the associated learning opportunities and assessments are relevant to both groups.
  Assess
  via curricular elements in which the majority of your students participate and over which your department has significant programmatic influence. For example, focus on courses required for the major and within your own department.
  Define two or three
  for each of the outcomes developed in D.v above. These are the measurable skills by which students can demonstrate mastery of the outcome. For example, for the outcome that students “demonstrate the ability to clearly communicate scientific concepts and information,” a KPI could be that students can “write a scientific report following professional norms.”
  For each point in the curriculum where you assess an outcome, create a
  for the corresponding
  that articulates the expectations for mastery of the outcome at a level appropriate to that point in the curriculum. For example, for the KPI above, a rubric item could be, “Does the article follow the formatting guidelines in the Physical Review Style Guide?” See the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning for further examples.
  Create a common reporting form that all
  in your department who are assessing an outcome use to document the results of the assessment and to make recommendations for changes to a course based on these results. A typical form will include the KPIs and
  for measuring those KPIs. See the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning for examples. Note that if your institution uses a specific software package for assessment, it may have a required format for reporting.
6. Develop a multi-year timetable that specifies which
  will be assessed each year. Ensure that each outcome is assessed every three to five years. Don’t try to assess every outcome every year (unless you are required to do so by your institution). For example, if your program has six program-level student learning outcomes, you could assess two outcomes each year, so that each outcome is assessed every three years. Each year that you assess an outcome, assess that outcome in multiple places in the curriculum, e.g., in two or three different courses. Detailed requirements vary by institution and/or
  agency.
  Align your timetable with your program’s
  to ensure that assessment activities and responsibilities are spread relatively evenly across terms and years, don’t fall disproportionately on a small number of faculty, and are frequent enough to monitor the impact of programmatic changes.
  Align the timetable as much as possible with other review processes or requirements, such as periodic departmental review, institutional
  , or program accreditation by an external agency such as
  .
  Build in mechanisms to revisit the effects of changes you make as a result of assessment of outcomes. For example, when making curricular changes, assess outcomes both before and after changes are implemented to determine the impact of these changes.
  Allow for flexibility to modify your
  in response to circumstances that have significant impacts on the program. For example, allow for assessing a particular outcome multiple years in a row to track the impact of a major curricular change.
7. Discuss your
  with your department so that all
  are aware of the plan’s core elements, such as
  , the
  , the assessment timetable, and
  . Integrate assessment activities into regular departmental discussions concerning, e.g., curriculum, budgeting, and staffing.
  Ensure that all
  are familiar with your plan and any responsibilities associated with their role in implementing it. Particularly emphasize the
  and timetable for assessing individual outcomes in specific courses or other curriculum elements. Discuss any concerns that may arise.
  Post your assessment plan where it can be easily accessed and referenced by
  .
8. Meet as a department or subgroup once or twice a year to discuss questions such as: Is your
  providing the information necessary to gauge whether students are meeting the outcomes you have set for the program? Does the plan help you identify whether your program provides sufficient opportunity for students to demonstrate competencies at the level set by the program? Does it help you identify areas of programmatic strength or areas that need improvement?
  Discuss whether the
  developed in D above suitably address the high-level skills and knowledge you expect students to gain in your program and whether they are aligned with your departmental mission and vision.
  Review the
  developed in E and the timetable developed in F to ensure that
  are being assessed in the appropriate courses; each outcome is assessed at different developmental levels in the curriculum; and outcomes are being assessed with sufficient frequency to monitor the impact of programmatic changes. Confirm which outcomes will be assessed in the next year and future years.
  Discuss whether the assessments need to be modified. Do your
  ,
  , and
  provide sufficient information about the degree of student mastery of the outcome? Are they appropriate for the course and the course level? Are the thresholds at the right level to provide useful feedback that can inform curricular decisions?
Conduct assessment of program-level student learning outcomes
1. Consult the
  and ensure that
  are aware in advance of which
  are being assessed each year and in which courses, so they can plan their assessments.
  Discuss with
  before the term begins the
  , corresponding
  , and reporting forms (see 2.E.vii–ix) for the outcomes they are assessing in their course(s).
2. Develop or designate one to three
  per course in which the outcome is being assessed based on the
  (2.E.vii) and corresponding
  (2.E.viii) for the outcome. This is usually done by the
  teaching the course, possibly in collaboration with the assessment committee formed in 2.C.ii. Avoid the tendency to put too many assessment measures in a course.
  Support
  in developing
  by having the assessment committee lead departmental discussions and provide examples.
  Familiarize
  with any institutional resources that support assessment.
3. Assign the designated
  in the courses stipulated in the
  according to the assessment timetable. Ensure that
  and associated assessment measures are the same in all sections and modes of delivery (e.g., in-person and online) of a given course.
  Conduct initial analysis of results in each course using a common reporting form (2.E.ix). This is usually done by the
  teaching the course. Relevant questions include: “According to the
  , do most students meet expectations for this outcome to the degree appropriate at this point in the curriculum?”; “What are students doing well, and in what areas could they improve?”; “Do the assessment results suggest specific curricular or pedagogical changes or actions in this course or in other courses in the curriculum?”; and “Do the course content and pedagogy adequately support students in developing the ability to demonstrate attainment of the outcome?” Identify areas where measurements of KPIs indicate problems your department needs to address. Note that some institutions may require you to identify thresholds for outcomes that require closer attention.
  Encourage
  to submit assessment results during or shortly after the course has been completed, so the details of the course are fresh in their minds while the assessments are being evaluated.
Use assessment results to inform programmatic change (“close the loop”)
1. Establish a regular process for your department to review and engage with assessment results to inform curricular planning, budgeting, and possible changes to the curriculum.
  Synthesize assessment results from across your
  for each outcome in periodic departmental conversations. Reflect on trends, note areas of strength, and identify potential areas for change or improvement.
  Analyze implications for individual courses and the program curriculum. Relevant questions include: “Is your curriculum structured so your students have the necessary knowledge and skills to meet expectations for each outcome at a developmental level appropriate to the points in the curriculum at which the outcome is assessed?”; “Are courses sequenced appropriately?”; and “Are the correct prerequisites in place to help students succeed?”
2. Use the analysis in A above to inform conversations and decisions about program curriculum, staffing, and budgeting. For example, your analysis might inform training and requests for
  and
  and allocation of laboratory and classroom space and equipment.
  Use assessment results to complement other kinds of departmental data, e.g., enrollment numbers,
  , and demographic data. See the supplement on Possible Key Performance Indicators for Departments for ideas about departmental data to collect. See the section on How to Be an Effective Chair for guidance on how to establish and sustain a culture of cyclic internal review.
  Create a process for regularly (e.g., annually) reviewing the impacts of curricular decisions and revisiting these decisions.
  See also the section on How to Create and Sustain Effective Change.
3. Maintain a central repository for assessment-related documents such as
  elements (e.g., departmental foundational documents,
  , timetable,
  , and reporting forms), raw assessment results, and analyses of results.
  Establish and maintain an internal record of assessment-based programmatic and curricular decisions that all faculty and staff can access and use to monitor programmatic initiatives and understand the rationale for them.
  Prepare and submit a report on your assessment results and decisions that is consistent with institutional requirements (see 2.B). Typical elements of such a report include a summary of
  ; a summary of the program’s
  , including the
  and timetable; a summary of direct and indirect
  results for that year; a summary of programmatic decisions made in response to assessment results, such as changes to individual courses or the program’s curriculum; and a review of the impacts of prior assessment-driven programmatic change.

Resources

Supplements within the EP3 Guide

See the section on How to Select and Use Various Assessment Methods in your Program for guidance on selecting and using tools such as surveys, inventories, and classroom observation to measure progress and drive future action.
See the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning for examples of essential assessment documents, including
Program-Level Student Learning Outcomes
Statements describing what your students should be able to do as a result of completing your degree program. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “identify,” “develop,” “communicate,” “demonstrate”) rather than “understand.” Program-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as program-level SLOs or as PLOs, and are also known as program-level learning goals. The term “outcomes” is becoming preferred over “goals” or “objectives” because it makes it clearer that these are defined expectations upon completion of the program, rather than aspirational goals that may or may not be achieved. Examples include:
Identify, formulate, and solve broadly defined technical or scientific problems by applying knowledge of mathematics and science and/or technical topics to areas relevant to the discipline
Develop and conduct experiments or test hypotheses, analyze and interpret data, and use scientific judgment to draw conclusions
Communicate scientific ideas and results in written and oral form according to professional standards and norms
Demonstrate and exemplify an understanding of ethical conduct in scientific and professional settings
Program-level student learning outcomes generally focus on overall program outcomes, in contrast to course-level student learning outcomes, which are specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses. Accreditation requirements typically require program-level student learning outcomes to be defined separately for each degree program (e.g., BA, BS, or minor), even though there will often be considerable overlap among these sets of outcomes. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level. For examples, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning or the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?
,
,
, and
Assessment Plan
A plan for assessing student learning at the program level that includes:
defined program-level student learning outcomes
a curriculum map that describes where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
a reasonable timetable that determines when and where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
periodic reflection on the results and the process to inform curricular and programmatic planning and decisions
, that you can use as a starting point for developing your own plan for assessment of student learning.

External Resources

R. Miller and A. Leskes, “Levels of Assessment from the Student to the Institution,” Association of American Colleges and Universities (2005): A short paper describing assessment at the course, program, and institution level.
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA): Provides resources for both program-level and course-level assessment of student learning.
National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT), Program Assessment: A broadly useful discussion of program assessment in a STEM context, with many references and resources. From the “Building Strong Departments” initiative in the geosciences at Carleton College.
Assessment Institute: A series of conferences on assessment and improvement in higher education.
ABET, Assessment Planning: An overview of the model of assessment used by
, which has long promoted the value of program-level assessment to improve engineering programs.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Indicators for Monitoring Undergraduate STEM Education”, The National Academies Press (2018): Identifies a set of national-level indicators to measure the status and quality of undergraduate STEM education over multiple years. While this report focuses on indicators of quality at the institution level, many of the indicators discussed also have relevance to department-level health and success.
National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT), Degree Programs: Design, Development, and Assessment: A resource with guidance and examples for designing and assessing degree programs, including creating
Program-Level Student Learning Outcomes
Statements describing what your students should be able to do as a result of completing your degree program. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “identify,” “develop,” “communicate,” “demonstrate”) rather than “understand.” Program-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as program-level SLOs or as PLOs, and are also known as program-level learning goals. The term “outcomes” is becoming preferred over “goals” or “objectives” because it makes it clearer that these are defined expectations upon completion of the program, rather than aspirational goals that may or may not be achieved. Examples include:
Identify, formulate, and solve broadly defined technical or scientific problems by applying knowledge of mathematics and science and/or technical topics to areas relevant to the discipline
Develop and conduct experiments or test hypotheses, analyze and interpret data, and use scientific judgment to draw conclusions
Communicate scientific ideas and results in written and oral form according to professional standards and norms
Demonstrate and exemplify an understanding of ethical conduct in scientific and professional settings
Program-level student learning outcomes generally focus on overall program outcomes, in contrast to course-level student learning outcomes, which are specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses. Accreditation requirements typically require program-level student learning outcomes to be defined separately for each degree program (e.g., BA, BS, or minor), even though there will often be considerable overlap among these sets of outcomes. For more details, see the section on How to Assess Student Learning at the Program Level. For examples, see the supplement on Sample Documents for Program-Level Assessment of Student Learning or the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?
,
, and
Assessment Plan
A plan for assessing student learning at the program level that includes:
defined program-level student learning outcomes
a curriculum map that describes where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
a reasonable timetable that determines when and where in the curriculum each outcome is assessed
periodic reflection on the results and the process to inform curricular and programmatic planning and decisions
.
S. Chasteen, How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?, PhysPort (2021): A PhysPort expert recommendation on how to develop
Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes
Statements describing what students should be able to do as a result of completing a particular course. Outcomes emphasize the integration and application of knowledge rather than coverage of material, and are observable, measurable, and demonstrable. They use specific, active verbs (e.g., “solve,” “describe,” and “calculate”) rather than “understand.” Course-level student learning outcomes are often abbreviated as course-level SLOs and are also known as course-level learning goals. Examples include:
Solve the Schroedinger equation in one dimension for commonly encountered simple potentials
Describe physical situations that correspond to simple potential energy curves
Calculate the electric field or potential due to a system of charges using Coulomb’s law
Course-level student learning outcomes are generally specific to the knowledge and skills addressed in individual courses, in contrast to program-level student learning outcomes, which focus on overall program outcomes. For instructional staff, these learning outcomes clarify what the course will deliver and unite course content with course-level assessments. Specifying course-level learning outcomes in individual course syllabi is often a requirement for accreditation of your institution, or of the institution itself. Assessment of course-level student learning outcomes through course assignments or examinations should be aligned with assessment of program-level learning outcomes, when possible. See the section on Supporting Research-Based Teaching in Your Department for guidance on how to use a cyclic process to design, assess, and improve courses based on student learning outcomes. For examples, see the PhysPort expert recommendation How do I develop student learning outcomes for physics courses?
.
A. Lahiff and C. O’Farrell, Writing Learning Outcomes, CAPSL: The Centre for Academic Practice, Trinity College Dublin (2009): A useful overview of how to write learning outcomes.
Association of American Colleges and Universities, Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) (2009): An initiative that provides rubrics for many common learning outcomes, available to download and adapt under a Creative Commons license.
ASSETT (Office of Information Technology) and TRESTLE (Center for STEM Learning), CU Boulder, Curricular Alignment: An overview of how to create curricular alignment in your program.
S. Sweet and S. Ferguson, Curriculum Mapping Toolkit for Sociology: Provides a framework for using curriculum mapping to assess and improve STEM departments in the context of sociology, though much of the discussion is relevant to any STEM department.

Evidence

There is little scholarly research on the impact that assessing student learning at the program level has on program improvement. However, references 1–3 provide frameworks for the importance of such assessment, reference 4 provides short articles on the principles of good practice underlying assessment of student learning, and reference 5 provides an explanation of the importance of assessment of student learning for