Visit
Apply
Give

Institutional Effectiveness

Self Study Rubric

Academic Program Review Rubric

Each section includes:

  • Criteria

  • Exemplary (4)

  • Proficient (3)

  • Developing (2)

  • Needs Improvement (1) / Not Applicable

I. Data Verification

Criteria: Accuracy and completeness of CIM, Faculty180, ODHE compliance data

  • Exemplary (4):
    All data sources verified, fully updated, clearly documented; alignment among systems demonstrated.

  • Proficient (3):
    Most data sources verified and updated; minor inconsistencies noted.

  • Developing (2):
    Partial verification with several missing or outdated elements.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    Data incomplete or unverified; major misalignments present.

II.A Identity

Criteria: Program history, mission, and progress since last review

  • Exemplary (4):
    Clear, concise, evidence-based history; mission aligns with college/university; strong reflection on past progress and outcomes.

  • Proficient (3):
    Clear mission and progress noted with some evidence; history summarized.

  • Developing (2):
    Mission and goals stated but lack alignment or supporting detail.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    Limited or missing information; no reflection on progress.

II.B Learning Outcomes & Pedagogy

Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)

  • Exemplary (4):
    PLOs measurable, current, discipline-aligned, and distinct; strong use of assessment evidence.

  • Proficient (3):
    PLOs mostly measurable and current; alignment with institutional outcomes demonstrated.

  • Developing (2):
    PLOs stated but vague or not measurable.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    PLOs missing, outdated, or lack measurable indicators.

Institutional Student Learning Outcomes

  • Exemplary (4):
    Comprehensive alignment analysis; clear ISLO/PLO integration.

  • Proficient (3):
    Partial alignment with supporting examples.

  • Developing (2):
    Minimal discussion; lacks data.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No discussion of ISLO/PLO alignment.

Core Curriculum Learning Outcomes (Undergraduate Only, If Applicable)

  • Exemplary (4):
    Full description of core courses and alignment with outcomes; assessment efforts demonstrate evidence-based reflection.

  • Proficient (3):
    Full description provided; assessment use evident.

  • Developing (2):
    Minimal discussion; lacks data.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No discussion of core curriculum courses.

Curriculum and Co-Curriculum

  • Exemplary (4):
    Curriculum map complete and current; scaffolded progression explained; co-curricular experiences integrated and assessed.
    Undergraduate only: Full description of State transfer/assurance efforts with timelines.

  • Proficient (3):
    Curriculum map complete; co-curricular discussion included.
    Undergraduate only: Transfer strategies described.

  • Developing (2):
    Curriculum summary provided but lacks analysis or mapping.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    Curriculum incomplete or outdated; transfer efforts not demonstrated.

Pedagogy and Instructional Methods

  • Exemplary (4):
    Varied, evidence-based, high-impact pedagogies linked to outcomes.

  • Proficient (3):
    Instructional methods linked to student learning described.

  • Developing (2):
    Limited discussion; few examples.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No discussion of pedagogy or engagement.

Service Courses

  • Exemplary (4):
    Comprehensive analysis showing how outcomes support external degree programs; evidence of collaboration.

  • Proficient (3):
    Analysis provided with evidence of collaboration.

  • Developing (2):
    Limited discussion.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    Not addressed.

II.C Program Effectiveness

Assessment of Student Learning

  • Exemplary (4):
    Systematic assessment with clear “closing the loop.”

  • Proficient (3):
    Results reported and used for improvement.

  • Developing (2):
    Assessment incomplete or inconsistent.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No recent assessment activity.

Student Success & Retention

  • Exemplary (4):
    Uses DFW, persistence, and graduation data; actions tied to improvement.

  • Proficient (3):
    Data reviewed with planned actions.

  • Developing (2):
    Minimal analysis; unclear link to actions.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No data presented.

Student Engagement

  • Exemplary (4):
    Multiple feedback sources used.

  • Proficient (3):
    Some evidence of feedback.

  • Developing (2):
    Limited discussion.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    Absent or anecdotal.

Ethical and Professional Practice

  • Exemplary (4):
    Clear examples of professional and ethical guidance.

  • Proficient (3):
    Some evidence provided.

  • Developing (2):
    Limited discussion.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    Not addressed.

External Performance Measures & Accreditation

  • Exemplary (4):
    Accreditation fully described with current status.

  • Proficient (3):
    Accreditation mentioned with documentation.

  • Developing (2):
    Partial or outdated information.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    Not addressed.

II.D Faculty Advising & Success After Graduation

  • Exemplary (4):
    Advising model explained; graduate outcomes tracked and analyzed; employer demand addressed.

  • Proficient (3):
    Advising practices described; graduate data used.

  • Developing (2):
    Minimal description.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No information provided.

II.E Program Planning

Enrollment, Demand, and Scheduling

  • Exemplary (4):
    Data analyzed with clear recruitment, retention, and scheduling strategies.

  • Proficient (3):
    Data reviewed with planning implications.

  • Developing (2):
    Limited interpretation.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    Missing or superficial analysis.

II.F Faculty Workload & Scholarship

  • Exemplary (4):
    Balanced workload; integration of research and teaching.

  • Proficient (3):
    Workload described; scholarship noted.

  • Developing (2):
    Uneven workload or limited scholarship discussion.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No information provided.

II.G Engagement, Extension & Resources

  • Exemplary (4):
    Strong outreach; efficient resource use; additional locations listed (if applicable).

  • Proficient (3):
    Engagement described; locations provided.

  • Developing (2):
    Limited examples.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No discussion of engagement or resources.

II.H Institutional Alignment & Strategic Planning

  • Exemplary (4):
    Clear alignment with institutional goals; measurable outcomes defined.

  • Proficient (3):
    Alignment with most goals.

  • Developing (2):
    General alignment; limited metrics.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No alignment identified.

Findings & Future Goals

  • Exemplary (4):
    Reflective synthesis with SMART goals, timelines, and alignment.

  • Proficient (3):
    Clear findings and goals.

  • Developing (2):
    General or vague goals.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    No clear findings or goals.

III. Required Attachments

Completeness and Relevance

  • **Exemplary (4):
    All attachments included, current, and referenced.

  • Proficient (3):
    Most attachments included.

  • Developing (2):
    Some missing or outdated.

  • Needs Improvement (1):
    Few or none provided.

Last Updated: 2/2/26