River
Y CombinatorBacked by Y Combinator
Log InStart Free
FREE TEMPLATE

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan

Four documents and four sheets that hold an outcome's attainment, the action taken after it, and whether the next cycle re-measured the same thing.

Edit with AIDownload (.docx + .csv)

Free download  ·  No account needed

What you get

Pack of 8 files: 4 documents, 4 spreadsheets

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan
  • How the Loop Closure Ledger Is BuiltDocument
  • Assessment PlanDocument
  • Findings ReportDocument
  • Closing the Loop NoteDocument
  • Evidence RegisterSpreadsheet
  • Outcome Attainment by CohortSpreadsheet
  • Improvement Action TrackerSpreadsheet
  • Loop Closure LedgerSpreadsheet
RiverStudent Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan

Loop Closure Ledger

Every action, against what tests it

One row per action, quoted as written. Four gates, in order.

IDActionOutFactMeasRubDenVerdict
A-1———————
A-2———————
A-3———————
A-4———————
A-5———————
A-6———————

The funnel

StageLeftDropped
Entered in the tracker——
Stated as a fact——
Outcome re-measured——
Same instrument——
Same denominator rule——

Rubric version and denominator rule are the two columns no reporting form asks for, and either one moves attainment on its own.

Every assessment plan ends in the same field. Use of results, or closing the loop, or improvements based on findings. It is a text box, so what lands in it is a sentence about intent, and a sentence cannot tell a reviewer whether attainment moved. The question underneath has two halves: did the programme actually do the thing, and did the next measurement of that same outcome say anything. Almost nobody joins them, because the action sits in last year's report and the measurement sits in this year's spreadsheet.

Thistlewood State University, BS Construction Management, five outcomes on a two-year rotation. The 2022-23 cycle produced six entries in the action tracker, and the annual report's headline was that attainment rose from 68.5% to 76.7%, up 8.2 points. Tested against the next cycle's re-measurement of the same outcome, on the same rubric, on the same population, two of the six survive. One lifted estimating by 16.8 points. The other was measured properly and fell 3.9 points.

The four that drop out are the useful part. One was a sentence about what faculty were considering. One outcome left the rotation, so nothing tested the action taken on it. One gained 15.0 points on a rubric rewritten from three criteria to five. One gained 13.1 points, of which 11.3 was seven non-submitters leaving the denominator. SACSCOC asks an institution for evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results, and the self-study pack runs the same test against an accreditor's criteria.

An 8.2 point rise, and two of six actions that can be tested

What the last cycle's six actions actually moved, the four outcome movements that are not comparable, and the one thing that would close each open row.

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Plan
RiverLedger

Loop Closure Ledger

Six actions, two the next cycle can test

Thistlewood State University, BS Construction Management. 2022-23 findings, 2024-25 re-measurement.

StageLeftDroppedWhy
Entered in the tracker6——
Stated as a fact5A-2Faculty were considering it
Outcome re-measured4A-4P4 left the rotation
Same instrument3A-3Rubric v2 to v3
Same denominator2A-5Enrolled to submitted

The rows themselves

IDOutFactMeasRubDen22-2324-25Verdict
A-1P1PassPassPassPass70.7%87.5%Closed, +16.8
A-6P2PassPassPassPass56.8%52.9%Closed, -3.9
A-2P2FailPassPassPass56.8%52.9%Open on intent
A-3P3PassPassFailPass64.1%79.1%Open, rubric
A-4P4PassFail——76.6%NoneOpen, no measure
A-5P5PassPassPassFail74.1%87.2%Open, denominator

A-6 is the most useful row in the file. Adding a module is the default answer to a weak outcome, and here it was done, measured on the same basis, and did not work.

RiverAttainment

Outcome Attainment by Cohort

The report says 68.5% to 76.7%, up 8.2 points

Benchmark is 75% at level 3 of 4. The constant rule counts every enrolled student.

OutCycRubMetScoredReportedEnrolConstantBench
P122-23v2415870.7%5870.7%Below
P124-25v2495687.5%5687.5%Met
P222-23v2254456.8%4456.8%Below
P224-25v2275152.9%5152.9%Below
P322-23v2253964.1%3964.1%Below
P324-25v3344379.1%4379.1%New base
P422-23v2364776.6%4776.6%Met
P424-25———None——None
P522-23v2405474.1%5474.1%Below
P524-25v2414787.2%5475.9%Met by 0.9

Which movements are comparable

OutReportedConstantDenominatorComparable
P1+16.8+16.80.0Yes
P2-3.9-3.90.0Yes
P3+15.0+15.00.0No, rubric
P4———No, dropped
P5+13.1+1.811.3No, denominator

The same 41 capstone students read as 87.2% of 47 or 75.9% of 54. Seven never submitted.

RiverClosing the Loop

Closing the Loop Note

Two closed, one of them backwards

Every open row carries the one thing that would close it. All dates 2025 or later.

IDActionVerdictWhat would close it
A-1Split the estimating lab into two of 28Closed, +16.8Nothing, it holds
A-6Critical path module, resource-loaded labsClosed, -3.9Rebuild, do not add
A-2Faculty are considering a prerequisiteOpen, intentPropose it, or withdraw it by name
A-3Rubric rewritten to five criteriaOpen, rubricA second cycle of v3 in 2026-27
A-4Hazard analysis case added to safetyOpen, no measureP4 back on the 2026-27 rotation
A-5Team charter and mid-term client check-inOpen, denominatorRe-score all 54, publish 75.9%

What the next cycle will be scored on

Check2022-23Target 2026-27
Actions stated as an accomplished fact5 of 66 of 6
Outcomes on the rotation4 of 55 of 5
Attainment on one denominator rule4 of 55 of 5
Loop closure rate33.3%Stated, whatever it is

The rate is a fact about how actions get written down rather than about the teaching. Four of the six were real work somebody really did.

Edit with AI

What's in the pack

01

Loop Closure Ledger

One row per action, scored against four gates in order, with a verdict, the reason an open row is open, and the one thing that would close it.

02

Improvement Action Tracker

Actions quoted in the words they were written in, each carrying the cycle, the rubric version and the denominator rule that will re-measure it.

03

Outcome Attainment by Cohort

Counts rather than percentages, per outcome per cycle, computed twice: on the rule the programme reported and on one rule held constant throughout.

04

Evidence Register

One row per scored artefact, with the rubric version, the level awarded and a row kept for every enrolled student who submitted nothing.

05

Closing the Loop Note

The document reviewers look for, opening on the count of actions that closed rather than on a description of what the programme intends.

06

Findings Report

Six findings, each ending in a recommendation with an owner and a date, a recorded no-action with its reason, or a new baseline with its next date.

07

Assessment Plan

Outcomes, rotation, instrument, threshold, benchmark and the fixed denominator rule, plus who collects which artefacts and by when.

08

How the Loop Closure Ledger Is Built

The four gates, why the rubric version and the population rule are two of them, and how to read a closure rate that nobody else computes.

How to use it

  1. 1

    Open it in River, or download it

    Open the pack in River and let the agent build the ledger from your own actions and results, or download the eight blank Word and CSV files with no account.

  2. 2

    Send last cycle's actions first

    Quoted in their own words, out of the previous annual report. The wording is the evidence, and this is the input people assume the exercise does not need.

  3. 3

    Add the results as counts

    Students at the threshold and students scored, per outcome per cycle, with the rubric version on both numbers. The rubric pack produces the levels these counts come from.

  4. 4

    Publish the rate with its counts

    Two of six, not 33% on its own. Every open row gets the specific thing that would close it, and every percentage gets its numerator and its denominator beside it.

Frequently asked questions

Is this template free?

Yes. Download all eight files as Word documents and CSV sheets with no signup and no card. Edit with AI is the optional path, where the agent runs the four gates against your own actions and recomputes attainment on one denominator. The other packs sit in the template library.

What format are the downloaded files?

Word documents (.docx) for the plan, the findings, the closing the loop note and the method explainer, and CSV (.csv) for the four sheets, zipped together. They open in Word, Pages, Google Docs, Excel, Numbers and Sheets. In River the same content opens as live Docs and Sheets.

Our institution mandates its own assessment report form. Does this conflict?

No, and you should file theirs. Every one of those forms has a use of results box and none of them asks for the rubric version or the denominator rule, which is why the box fills with intentions. Compute the ledger here, then write the answers into whatever shape your provost's office requires.

Why does a rewritten rubric break the comparison?

Because rewriting three criteria into five moves the level descriptors, and the threshold moves with them, so the new figure is a fact about the new rubric. NC State's reporting guide asks for rubric results at the item or element level rather than as an overall mean, for a related reason: an average cannot locate what is weak.

Is a loop closure rate of two in six bad?

It is normal on a first run, and it is a fact about the reporting habit rather than about the faculty. Four of the six actions were real work somebody really did. What the ledger shows is that the annual report was collecting sentences, which is what a text box asks for.

Do we have to do this every year?

Federal rules have accreditors reevaluate institutions at regularly established intervals and collect measures of student achievement periodically, so the cycle arrives whether or not a programme runs one. The pack is built for a two-year rotation because an action needs its outcome back on the table while people still remember acting.

How does this relate to a programme review or a self-study?

This produces the evidence both of those cite. A programme review asks what the whole programme should do next, and a self-study answers an accreditor's criteria. Where the findings send you back to redesigning a course, the course design pack picks it up.

Sources

  1. sacscoc.orgSACS LOGO WHT 874 TM (opens in a new tab)
  2. provost.ncsu.eduSLOs Assessment — Quick Guide 2023 (opens in a new tab)
  3. eCFR34 CFR 602.19 — Monitoring and reevaluation of accredited institutions and programs (opens in a new tab)

Written by

Chandler Supple

Co-founder & CEO, River

Chandler has spent the last six years working in AI, building tools for millions of users and Fortune 100 companies. In 2025, he co-founded River to build a new kind of operating system for AI agents.

LinkedInGitHubX

Reviewed by

Brian Joseff, Co-founder, River

LinkedInX

More free templates

Academic Policy Documentation Template

Policy documentation template that checks every published policy against the version your committee approved, split into match, stale, unapproved and missing.

Academic Programme Review Report Template

Programme review template that scores what the last review's recommendations actually changed, then ends every finding in a decision with an owner and a date.

Accreditation Self-Study Report Template

Self-study template joining every accreditor criterion to dated exhibits, so evidence on file that predates the review period surfaces before a reviewer does.

Teaching Portfolio Template for Tenure

Teaching portfolio template that reads scores against course context instead of a blended average, and logs contributions before they need reconstructing.

Find out how many of your loops actually closed

Download the blank pack as Word and CSV files, or open it in River and have last cycle's actions run through the four gates against your own results.

Edit with AI