Skip to Main Content

Student Learning Assessment Resources

Discussion Overview

Discussion

Your academic program assessment should be meaningful for the faculty in the department and should lead to evidence-based strategies for improving student learning. The Discussion section of your assessment document is where you interpret the data collected and presented in the Results section, explaining what you learned about student learning from analyzing the data. You can also propose conclusions here about what factors may have produced specific scores. The way you interpret your data will directly affect the action items you will choose to implement in the final section of your assessment document.

As with all other sections, be sure to show how your interpretation of the data connects to your student learning outcomes.

Tips for Discussion

  • Can you identify any areas of strengths or weakness from the data you collected? Do you have any theories about why these could be areas of strength or weakness?
  • Do results point back to anything in the teaching strategies section?
  • How do these results compare to previous years or to targets set by the department?
  • Can you identify any flaws in your data? How can these be addressed?
  • Is the data set complete? If not, how do you plan to address that in the future?
  • Was your sample size sufficient? If not, how do you plan to address that in the future?
  • Your discussion should take into account the data collected for each campus and mode of instruction. Do you notice any discrepancies in results? How do you account for those differences?
  • The discussion section is an important part of justifying any proposed changes or action plans presented in the final section of the report. Think ahead to how this interpretation will inform next steps for the course.

Examples

For examples of discussion from Georgia Southern University academic programs, please see the Academic Program Assessment Document Handbook or the Core Course Assessment Document Handbook.

 

Discussion Peer-review Criteria

Academic Program Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

At Georgia Southern, the Academic Assessment Steering Committee (AASC) reviews all academic program assessment documents on an annual basis. When reviewing the discussion, the committee uses the  following rubric criteria to provide feedback to the program:

1 - BEGINNING 2 - DEVELOPING 3 - ACCEPTABLE 4 - EXEMPLARY
No interpretation is attempted, or the interpretation does not relate to the SLO and/or the results. Interpretation is attempted, relates to the SLO and/or results but the interpretation is either insufficient to support programmatic decisions, not aligned with the program's previous action plans, offering excuses for results rather than thoughtful interpretations leading to improvements in student learning. Interpretation is aligned with the program's SLO's. Interpretation is explained in terms of the desired levels of student performance, and is based on student achievement of those levels. Interpretation is justified through current disciplinary standards, previous results and/or benchmarks. Interpretation includes how courses, experiences, and/or the assessment process might have affected results. Interpretation indicates the appropriate collaboration and consensus of multiple internal stakeholders (e.g., program faculty committees, staff, and/or students). Interpretation is detailed enough to justify programmatic decisions concerning changes in instruction and/or curriculum. Interpretation directly addresses the program's mission, SLOs, and action plans. Interpretation addresses past trends in student performance, as appropriate. Interpretation identifies possible areas of improvement, thus initiating future actions.

General Education Student Learning Outcome Assessment Results

At Georgia Southern, the General Education and Core Curriculum (GECC) committee reviews all core course assessment documents on an annual basis. When reviewing the discussion, the committee uses the  following rubric criteria to provide feedback to the course:

1 - BEGINNING 2 - DEVELOPING 3 - ACCEPTABLE 4 - EXEMPLARY
No interpretation is attempted, or the interpretation does not relate to the Area Student Learning Outcome and/or the results. Interpretation is attempted, relates to the Area Student Learning Outcome and/or results but the interpretation is either insufficient to support programmatic decisions, not aligned with the program's previous action plans, offering excuses for results rather than thoughtful interpretations leading to improvements in student learning. Interpretation is aligned with the Area Student Learning Outcome. Interpretation is explained in terms of the desired levels of student performance, and is based on student achievement of those levels. Interpretation is justified through current disciplinary standards, previous results and/or benchmarks. Interpretation includes how course content, experiences, and/or the assessment process might have affected results. Interpretation indicates the appropriate collaboration and consensus of multiple internal stakeholders (e.g., program faculty committees, staff, and/or students). Interpretation is detailed enough to justify programmatic decisions concerning changes in instruction and/or curriculum. Interpretation provided for data from all applicable campuses and/or delivery modes. Interpretation directly addresses the Area Student Learning Outcome and results leading to an action plan. Interpretation addresses past trends in student performance, as appropriate. Interpretation identifies possible areas of improvement, thus initiating future actions. Interpretation of data includes an analysis of equivalencies across all applicable campuses and/or delivery modes.

Discussion Additional Resources