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.
Free download · No account needed
Loop Closure Ledger
Every action, against what tests it
One row per action, quoted as written. Four gates, in order.
| ID | Action | Out | Fact | Meas | Rub | Den | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| A-2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| A-3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| A-4 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| A-5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| A-6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
The funnel
| Stage | Left | Dropped |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
What's in the pack
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Assessment Plan
Outcomes, rotation, instrument, threshold, benchmark and the fixed denominator rule, plus who collects which artefacts and by when.
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
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
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
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
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.
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