This hypothetical, annotated template is appropriate
for the Post and Regional campuses.
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
School/College: College of Education
Department: Instructional Systems and Technology
Program: M.Ed.
Contact: Dr. Angela Weiss
Date: May 31, 2012
LIU Post
The department, program, and contacts are
fictitious. This hypothetic exemplar models the
Annual Assessment Phase I Report for any
degree-granting program in any school/college,
undergraduate or graduate, at the Post and
Regional campuses.
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT OVERVIEW
This document is submitted twice every year.
By November 30th, programs are asked to enter their goals, objectives, and the measurement tools
that will be used to assess student learning into the table on the next page (Phase I).
By May 31st, programs are asked to add data results into that table, to interpret those data, to describe
proposed changes to the program, and to offer a brief discussion of previous years’ changes (Phase II).
Programs are encouraged to examine the Annotated Exemplar available on the
Outcomes Assessment website: http://liu.edu/Academic-Affairs/Outcomes-Assessment.aspx
MEASUREMENT TOOLS
All measurement tools for the current year should be submitted for review. Please embed all measurement tools
in this document after page 3.
Measurement tool expectations:

For a given academic year, at least four different direct measurement tools should be used.

Each objective must be assessed by at least two direct measurement tools.

Each objective should be measured in multiple places (e.g., courses, field experiences,
comprehensive exams) across a program.

Graduate student learning must be more advanced than undergraduate student learning.

Each measurement tool must be designed to identify students’ relative strengths and weaknesses.

If an exam is used, please list the test items related to each specific sub-topic or sub-skill of the
objective being assessed.

If a rubric is used, the rubric should have a sufficient number of dimensions (learning criteria) so that
specific sub-topics or sub-skills of the objective can be assessed.
In addition to at least four direct measurement tools, programs are welcome to submit optional indirect
measurement tools for review. Similarly, discipline-based accredited programs are welcome to submit for
review measurement tools, beyond the four direct measurement tools, that are related to the discipline-based
reaccreditation process.
All programs conducting discipline-based self-studies will need to include the program’s LIU Assessment
Report. Such programs are encouraged to use the LIU assessment process to examine more closely areas of
student weaknesses identified in their self-study findings.
•1
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
For data collected in current academic year, please report:
Phase I: Fill in these two columns,
embed your measurement tools at the
end of this file, and email the
document to your Dean by
November 30.
Phase II: Fill in this last
column, complete the rest of
the document, and email the
document to your Dean by
May 31.
Phase II information is highlighted
in yellow for viewing in this file.
2012-2013 ACADEMIC YEAR TABLE
Phase I – due November 30
Phase II – due May 31
Student Learning Goals &
Measurement Tools (provide
Data Findings (for an example, please
name of tool, course, and semester
see the Annotated Exemplar on the OA
Objectives
Students will…
used; then embed tool at the end of
this file)
website)
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Learning Objective 1:
Identify and discuss important
characteristics of learning
theories that inform the
instructional design process
The department is using an
examination. To adequately
explain the measurement tool,
they (1) indicate the specific
course in which the test will
be given and (2) embed a test
blueprint at the end of this
report. A test blueprint
provides the number of
questions that will be asked on
each aspect of the testable
content. Best practice
indicates that the number of
questions asked for each
content area should mirror the
time devoted to the content (in
class and in out-of-class
assignments).
Measure 1:
Final Exam in IST 421, Fall 2012,
represented by test blueprint (see
Appendix A, p. 10 of this report)
Measure 2:
Culminating Portfolio
“Philosophical Perspective” entries
scored with Professional
Philosophy Rubric, Spring 2013
(see Appendix B, pp. 11-12 of this
report)
The specific assignment
(students’ philosophical
perspective paper) is indicated
here, as is the measurement
tool being used (Professional
Philosophy Rubric) to assess
it.
Note that the page numbers of the
Measurement Tool Appendices
have changed due to the addition
of Phase II information to the file.
Measure 1:
Only 74% correctly answered knowledge
questions about Motivation and SelfRegulation. Only 67% answered
application questions about Motivation
and Self-Regulation. See Table A on p.4
for all data findings.
Measure 2:
52% were rated as below proficient on the
Connection of (philosophical
perspectives) to Portfolio Items. See
Table B on p. 5 for all data findings.
Brief, key data findings are presented
here. The full data tables with all of the
results are provided below (in the Phase
II: Data Findings section) and referred
to here by Table name and page.
•2
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Goal 1: connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Learning Objective 2:
describe theories of learning
for the development of
effective instruction and apply
theories to specific
instructional design models
and products
For the two measurement
tools indicated here, the
specific course in which the
rubric will be used is clear
AND each specific rubric is
mentioned and embedded in
the report.
Measure 1:
Culminating assignment in IST
527, scored with Theory Rubric,
Fall 2012 (see Appendix C, p. 1314 of this report).
Measure 1:
33% were rated as below proficient on
Alignment between Goals and Instruction.
51% were rated as below proficient on
Alignment between Goals and Evaluation.
See Table C on p. 5 for all data findings.
Measure 2:
Capstone Project in IST 601B
scored with rubric, Spring 2013
(see Appendix D, pp. 15-17 of this
report).
Measure 2:
Only 68% were rated as “Very Good” or
“Exceptional” on Alignment of
Evaluation to Objectives. See Table D on
p. 6 for all data findings.
In the Fall, Phase I ends with completing the first two columns of the table above and embedding
(pasting in) the measurement tools at the end of this file.
For Phase II in the Spring, programs will rename their final Phase I Annual Report file as their Phase II
file, and then embed (paste in) summaries of all data in the Data Findings section below; they will also
report key findings in the final column of the table above, and then complete the Phase II Data
Interpretation, Planned Changes, and Closing the Loop sections below.
PHASE II: DATA FINDINGS





For each measurement tool, report qualitative and/or quantitative findings below. Report aggregate
results (not data for each individual student) so that trends in learning across the group are revealed.
Report summary data for specific sub-concepts or sub-skills across the group of students, rather than
total scores on the given assignment, so that areas of strength and weakness within a given topic or
skillset are revealed.
Report the total number of students assessed per measure. Small programs are encouraged to report
cumulative results over multiple years.
Do NOT report faculty or student names with findings.
Note key data findings in the Phase II column of the ACADEMIC YEAR TABLE above.
•3
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Table A
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 1: Identify and discuss important characteristics of learning theories that inform the instructional design
process
Measure 1: Findings for IST 421 Final Exam
Number of
Students = 35
The results of a test analysis (using a free online test analysis program) provide the % correct for
each set of multiple choice questions on the exam. These data indicate that students performed least
well on questions about motivation theories, and this was true at both the knowledge and application
levels of questioning. The data also show that, for each topic, students performed worse on
application questions than they did on knowledge questions.
Learning and Behavior
Cognitive Information Processing
Meaningful Learning/Schema Theory
Situated Learning
Cognitive and Knowledge Development
Interactional Theories
Motivation and Self-Regulation
Gagne’s Theory of Instruction
Constructivism
Knowledge/
Comprehension
% Correct
.95
.89
.81
.83
.94
.90
.74
.98
.82
Application
% Correct
.88
.87
.81
.80
.90
.88
.67
.95
.79
For easy readability of the results, areas of student weakness that were of most concern
in each measure are shaded gray in the tables.
•4
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Table B
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 1: Identify and discuss important characteristics of learning theories that inform the instructional
design process
Measure 2: Findings for Professional Philosophy Rubric
Number of Students = 40
Reflectiveness
Relation to Discipline
Grounding in theory
Connection to portfolio items
Appropriateness of language
Organization and succinctness
Unsatisfactory
3%
3%
5%
23%
0%
0%
Novice
8%
10%
11%
29%
3%
5%
Proficient
28%
28%
50%
33%
28%
40%
Sophisticated
63%
60%
35%
15%
70%
55%
In each of the tables on this page (Table B and Table C), it is pretty easy to determine where students
have weaknesses. It is not always quite this easy to identify a main weakness that a program might
consider important to address right away – sometimes the results within one table are not very different
from one another. There may also be multiple areas of weaknesses that seem equally important for the
program to address (for example, see Table C).
Table C
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 2: Describe theories of learning for the development of effective instruction and apply theories to
specific instructional design models and products
Measure 1: Findings for Theory Rubric
Number of Students = 40
Knowledge of learning theory
Knowledge of instructional design
model
Link between the theory and the
design model
Alignment of instructional goals to
learning theory
Alignment between goals and
instruction designed
Alignment between goals and
evaluation
Unsatisfactory
0%
Novice
13%
Proficient Sophisticated
38%
50%
3%
8%
30%
60%
5%
15%
50%
30%
0%
5%
33%
63%
8%
25%
37%
30%
12%
39%
36%
13%
•5
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Table D
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 2: Describe theories of learning for the development of effective instruction and apply theories to
specific instructional design models and products
Measure 2: Findings for Capstone Rationale Rubric
Number of Students = 40
Unsatisfactory
Acceptable
Proficient
Sophisticated
Learning Need and Goal Statement
3%
8%
18%
73%
Approaches to Learning
5%
10%
23%
63%
Theoretical Framework
9%
13%
48%
40%
Instructional Design Choices
5%
8%
20%
68%
Alignment of Goal to Theory
5%
8%
15%
73%
Alignment of Objectives to Goal
8%
13%
20%
60%
Alignment of Instructional Materials to
Objectives
8%
10%
30%
53%
Alignment of Evaluation to Objectives
13%
20%
40%
28%
PHASE II: DATA INTERPRETATION
Assessment aims to research student performance in order to better identify programmatic pedagogical and
curricular changes that can help improve student learning. In approximately a paragraph for each measurement
tool, please describe what the data show regarding students’ relative strengths and areas for improvement for
the specific objective being measured.
If a program is reassessing a learning objective, please contrast data collected during the current year to data
previously collected and to address this comparison in the interpretation.
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 1: Identify and discuss important characteristics of learning theories that inform the instructional
design process
With respect to goal 1, objective 1, measure 1, data
indicate that students performed less well on questions
related to motivation than to other content. Students
also performed less well on application versus
knowledge-based questions. Finally, data combining
question type with level indicated that relative to other
questions, students performed worse on application
questions related to motivation theory. Students do not
seem to be clear on how theories of motivation can
In this example, the two measures yielded
information about different learning weaknesses;
therefore, the data interpretations are provided in
separate paragraphs. For each interpretation, the
narrative includes: (a) a restatement of the data
findings, (b) an indication of what the relative
weaknesses in learning were relative to the
measurement tools used, and (c) what the department
thinks this means relative to pedagogy or curriculum.
•6
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
explain learning success (or failure), which is important to understanding performance. Further, they also do
not seem to understand Keller’s ARCS model motivation model of instruction. This suggests that the readings,
instruction, and related assignments given on this topic were not as effective as for other theories and/or perhaps
there was not enough time spent discussing the application of motivation theory to learning. It is unsurprising
that application questions were more difficult for students; however, it is unexpected that the scores related to
motivation theory would be so problematic for the students.
With respect to goal 1, objective 1, measure 2, data indicate that students’ presentation of their epistemological
beliefs is not always consistent with the instruction they have designed, even though they believe that it is.
Specifically, students tend to represent their epistemological beliefs as post-positivist when often the instruction
they develop and present has a very positivist approach. Although they seem to test well on this area (in the
examination used for Goal 1 Objective 1), they have difficulty applying these theories to their own work. This
suggests that while students may have a strong appreciation for the practical aspects of constructivist theories,
they may not have a firm grasp on epistemological foundations of constructivist theories and may not
understand fully post-positivist approaches to instruction, such as social- and cognitive-constructivism.
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 2: Describe theories of learning for the development of effective instruction and apply theories to
specific instructional design models and products
Similar results were found for the two
In this example, the two measures yielded information that was
measures used for goal 1, objective 2.
similar with respect to student weaknesses in learning. Therefore,
the interpretation of those data is collapsed across one paragraph,
The first measure, used with the
since the paragraph provides interpretation of data as it relates to
culminating assignment in IST 527,
both measurement tools.
indicates that students were not as
successful at aligning their instruction
and their evaluation to learning goals than they were with completing other aspects of the design process. With
respect to Measure 2, administered during the final capstone course in which students work in an authentic
environment to design a major instructional product, the relative weakness in aligning evaluations to goals
continues. Since this is not a lock-step program, some students may not have a sufficient number of
opportunities to develop skills related to the alignment of assessment to goals. Additionally, weaknesses
relative to students’ knowledge of assessment strategies and designing good assessments were found in prior
outcomes assessment endeavors; this year’s data provide further evidence of students’ weaknesses related to
assessment.
PHASE II: PLANNED CHANGES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING BASED ON ABOVE FINDINGS
In a sentence or two for each measure, please describe proposed tangible ways (e.g., changes in course modules,
course sequencing, course offerings, teaching techniques) in which the program can help improve the student
learning performance described in the above findings for each objective. Please identify the course, semester,
and year for which the change is proposed. It is understood that follow-up faculty discussions will be needed to
finalize planned changes.
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 1: Identify and discuss important characteristics of learning theories that inform the instructional
design process
•7
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Proposed changes to address the problems related to Goal 1, Objective 1, Measure 1 (tentative, dependent on
further departmental conversations scheduled for Fall 2013):
- Additional supportive readings and instructional
videos discussing research in the area of
Note that in all of the examples for proposed
motivation and how it applies to learning and to
changes, the department indicates that the changes
designing instruction will be included in IST
proposed are tentative, subject to faculty
421.
discussion in the upcoming semester. While some
- A panel of faculty who study motivation in
departments will have had the opportunity to
various contexts (social psychology,
discuss the findings of OA in the spring semester,
management, sociology) will speak about how
many will not have had this opportunity. All of
theories of motivation apply to human behavior
the listed proposed changes may be implemented,
(either within IST 421 or IST 525 or as a
one or two of the proposed changes may be
implemented, or alternative proposed changes may
required session outside of class for all IST
be implemented, depending on the results of
students)
department discussion.
- Students will be required to use Keller’s ARCS
Model in IST 525 to design instruction with
motivation as a key component.
Proposed changes to address weaknesses in student learning related to Goal 1, Objective 1, Measure 2
(tentative, dependent on further departmental conversations scheduled for Fall 2013).
- In IST 421, instructors will lead more class discussions and develop more in-class and take-home
activities specifically related to understanding the epistemological differences between constructivist
theories and other cognitive learning theories.
- In IST 525, instructors will locate exemplars of constructivist learning environments and ask students to
critically review these exemplars with respect to how they represent the epistemological beliefs of
constructivist theorists. A rubric for assessing these types of assignments will be developed in
conjunction with the students to further address their understanding of constructivism.
In the example above, the measurement tool (the Professional Philosophy) was used at the end of the program with
an assignment in the Culminating Portfolio. The learning weaknesses identified through this process are important,
and the Faculty are considering new changes across a couple of courses in the program in order to address it.
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 2: Describe theories of learning for the development of effective instruction and apply theories to
specific instructional design models and products
Proposed changes to address weaknesses in student learning related to Goal 1, Objective 2, Measure 1 & 2
(tentative, dependent upon further departmental conversations scheduled for the first department meeting of Fall
2013):
- Weaknesses related to assessment were identified in a previous cycle, though the weaknesses were
related to developing instructional assessments per se rather than linking them to goals and instruction.
However, these weaknesses are related, and they could be further addressed in the new, required course
(IST 550).
•8
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
-
-
LIU Post
Additionally, the current Analyzing Learning Outcomes (IST 522) course will include new tasks in
which examples of good and bad links between goals and the related instruction and evaluation, will be
identified and analyzed.
Futhermore, in all design-heavy courses, faculty will respond specifically and in detail to any
misalignment between assessments and goals when students develop instructional products. All project
rubrics will be required to include such a dimension.
PHASE II: CLOSING THE LOOP - CUMULATIVE CHANGES IN TEACHING AND LEARNING
Please discuss what the program has learned about improving student learning from implemented changes in
academic year 2011-2012 (or for other changes not yet reported). For each implemented change in teaching and
learning made in response to assessment of student learning data, please report:





Goal/objective assessed
Student weakness(es) identified across the
program
Change in teaching and learning implemented
to address program-level student weakness(es)
Date (semester/year) change was implemented
If known, effectiveness of implemented change
Note that in this section, the department simply
provides a very brief summary of actual (as opposed to
proposed) changes they made based on any previous
years’ OA data. They note the specific goal, briefly
identify the weaknesses, indicate the specific change
and when it took place, and indicate whether or not
they know whether that change was effective (and if
not, when they might know).
Goal 2, Objective 1 - In last year’s assessment, we
found that students who were completing their final project in the capstone courses, IST 601A and 601B, were
not proficient in implementing the needs assessment process. Although the program includes a needs
assessment course (IST 521), the faculty concluded that students were not getting the practice in conducting
needs assessment when designing and developing instruction in instructional design required courses (IST 525
and 527) and in elective courses. Thus, the department faculty decided to require students to conduct a needs
assessment for at least one project in each of our design heavy courses. This change was first implemented in
Fall 2012, but we have decided not to assess proficiency with needs assessment until the next assessment cycle
to give the change a chance to impact student learning more substantively.
Goal 4, Objectives 2 and 3 – We also learned in the previous assessment cycle that our students were not
proficient with creating test items or strong assessment rubrics. The department decided that this area was so
problematic that we should add a new course to the required course sequence. In addition to the IST 522
Analyzing Learning Outcomes, we now require students to take a course specifically in educational
measurement to focus on the more quantitative aspects of assessment and evaluation (IST 550). The course was
approved by all appropriate constituencies in Spring 2012, and was first implemented during Fall 2012. We will
revisit these objectives in the next three-year cycle to provide a chance for the change to make meaningful
differences in student learning.
November 30, 2012: Email this document to your Dean’s Office, with Phase I information embedded.
May 31, 2013: Email a later version of this document to your Dean’s Office, with Phase II information
embedded.
RESOURCES
For supportive material to assist in completing this report, please see http://liu.edu/Academic-Affairs/OutcomesAssessment.aspx.
For responses to questions or requests for assistance, please contact the Assessment Dean Representative, Assessment
Specialist, or Faculty Assessment Fellow for your school/college. See http://liu.edu/Academic-Affairs/OutcomesAssessment.aspx for a list of such individuals.
•9
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Appendix A
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 1: Identify and discuss important characteristics of learning theories that inform the instructional
design process
Measure 1: IST 421 Final Exam Test Specifications/Blueprint (# of Questions = 200)
Learning and Behavior
Cognitive Information Processing
Meaningful Learning/Schema Theory
Situated Learning
Cognitive and Knowledge Development
Interactional Theories
Motivation and Self-Regulation
Gagne’s Theory of Instruction
Constructivism
Know/Comp Application
10
5
15
10
10
5
10
5
15
10
20
10
20
10
10
5
20
10
The number of test items
on a given topic should
be based on the amount
of time the course/
program devotes to
specific concepts as well
as the overall importance
the course/program
places on one area of
study over another.
Many departments do not want to include their specific examinations in their OA report, either because the tests are not yet
developed in time for the submission of the Phase I report, or because the department hopes to re-use the test items and does
not want a copy of the test circulating somewhere. If the department provides a test specification/blueprint table and questions
are later developed or pulled from an item bank to fit the table, providing the test specifications table suffices for the
measurement tool reported in Phase I of the Annual Report.
• 10
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Appendix B
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 1: Identify and discuss important characteristics of learning theories that inform the instructional design process
Measure 2: Professional Philosophy Rubric
Task: Write a clear and concise statement of your professional philosophy as an instructional designer. Include: (a) a reflection of why you take this
approach, (b) how your philosophy relates to the discipline, (c) which theories inform your philosophy, and (d) how specific products presented in
your portfolio reflect your philosophy. This philosophy statement should be written for the lay person and should be organized coherently.
Level of
reflection
Unsatisfactory
The writer’s approach to
design and learning
development is unclear. The
narrative is not engaging and
the writer evades all
personal disclosure and selfreflection. It is not clear why
this person has become an
instructional designer.
Relation to
discipline
Philosophy tells the reader
nothing about instructional
design products or how the
writer’s approach is similar
to/different from that of
others in the field.
Theoretical
grounding
Writer neither makes
reference to relevant
scholarly work on
instructional design nor to
what s/he has learned from
experience.
Acceptable
The philosophy provides a
limited sense of the writer’s
approach to instructional design
and learning development. It
would be helpful to know more
about this person as a
professional – particularly with
respect to what motivated
him/her to become an
instructional designer and why
he/she is interested in the field.
Philosophy begins to explain
goals, assignments, and
methods of instructional design
products.
Writer is not reflective about
choice of instructional design
theories/methods and outcomes.
If experience is very limited,
writer shows little awareness of
how others go about designing
instruction products.
Proficient
The narrative is engaging and
reflective. It is clear why this
person has become an
instructional designer, and
his/her approach to design and
learning development are
evident, although it would be
helpful to know more about the
person’s professional goals.
Philosophy explains goals,
assignments, and methods of
instructional design products.
Writer summarizes how his/her
instructional design process
is shaped by the field and/or
diverges from disciplinary
norms.
Instructor notes relevant
literature/experience and shows
some evidence of systematic
work to increase his/her own and
the students’ understandings.
May necessarily be limited by
point in career.
Sophisticated
The narrative is engaging, honest,
and reflective. You feel that you
know this person as a person and as
a professional. The writer’s
approach to design and learning
development is evident and
presented with clarity and
decisiveness, and the reasons he/she
has become an instructional designer
as well as his/her professional goals
are clear and well-stated.
Philosophy explains goals,
assignments, and methods of
instructional design products.
Writer uses examples to explain
how his/her instructional design
process is shaped by the field and/or
diverges from disciplinary norms.
Writer shows how relevant literature
(including theories of teaching and
learning) informs instructional
design products OR refers
specifically to strategies taken,
assessment outcomes, and lessons
for future practice OR both.
• 11
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Connection to
portfolio items
Articulation of link between
the philosophy and items in
the portfolio is unfocused,
incomplete, or missing.
Articulation of the link between
the professional philosophy is
not clearly connected to
instructional design products, or
if connected, not well
developed (seems like a list of
what is done in the instructional
design products). The products
are generically described.
Articulation of the link between
the professional philosophy is
clearly connected to instructional
design products, but is not overly
detailed and some questions
about this connection remain.
Articulation of the link between the
philosophy and items in the
portfolio is specific and thoughtful.
Details and rationale about this
connection are included. The
products are clearly connected to
specific theories and are appropriate
for the stated philosophy.
Appropriateness
of language
Diction is inappropriate
and/or incomprehensible.
Disciplinary language is
overused to the point of
obstructing meaning for the
non-specialist and belying a
lack of clarity for the
specialist.
Rambling assertions are
presented without apparent
logical structure, insight, or
rhetorical effect. Many parts
of the philosophy are
irrelevant or redundant.
Expression is wordy.
Diction is distracting. Many
words need to be defined for
the non-specialist or replaced
by more common words that
the specialist would find
sufficiently accurate for the
intended audience.
Diction is generally appropriate
to audience and does not
seriously impede understanding.
A few words need to be defined.
Specialists may find an
occasional imprecise or inelegant
word or phrase.
Designer chooses words with care.
Those unfamiliar with the discipline
would find the language helpful,
while the choice of words is
accurate, clear, and perhaps even
elegant to those in the discipline.
Ordering of assertions is not
entirely logical and/or some
paragraphs are irrelevant. The
arrangement mutes or clouds
the rhetorical effect that seems
intended. Some points seem
labored. Redundancies and
wordiness are distracting.
Assertions are arranged logically,
and all paragraphs are relevant.
Some slight reordering would
increase rhetorical effectiveness,
as would some economizing at
sentence- and/or word level.
Assertions are arranged logically,
with insight, and to rhetorical effect.
Every paragraph is relevant and
contains illustrative examples. No
point is belabored, and no statement
is wordy or redundant.
Organization
and succinctness
Rubric modified from:
Assessment Rubric for Teaching/Learning Philosophy (http://www.schreyerinstitute.psu.edu/pdf/Teaching_Philosophy_rubric_r1.pdf)
Rubric for Statements of Teaching Philosophy developed by Matt Kaplan, Chris O’Neal, Debbie Meizlish, Rosario Carillo,
and Diana Kardia
• 12
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Appendix C
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 2: describe theories of learning for the development of effective instruction and apply theories to specific instructional design models and
products
Measure 1: Theory Rubric
Task: This rubric assesses your knowledge of learning theory and its direct link to the ID model of Elaboration Theory. After designing your
instructional materials to relate to Elaboration Theory, write a rationale addressing the theoretical underpinnings of the instructional package. This
rationale should (1) display your knowledge of the learning theory and the instructional design model, (2) intentionally address how learning theory
informs the Elaboration Theory Instructional Design Model, and (3) discuss how specific aspects of your instructional design product (i.e., the goals,
instruction designed, and method of evaluation) align with the theory you have identified as central to Elaboration Theory.
Unsatisfactory
The writer does not
Knowledge of
learning theory present the central
theoretical concepts
associated with a theory of
learning and/or does not
use quotations from
primary readings.
The writer does not
Knowledge of
present the central
instructional
theoretical concepts
design model
associated with a specific
instructional design model
of learning; quotations
from primary readings are
either not used or are not
used effectively.
Acceptable
The writer begins to present
some of the central theoretical
concepts associated with a
theory of learning and uses some
quotations from primary
readings although in a limited
way.
The writer begins to present
some of the central theoretical
concepts associated with a
specific instructional design
model and uses some quotations
from primary readings although
in a limited way.
Proficient
The writer presents some of
the central theoretical
concepts associated with a
theory of learning and uses
quotations from primary
readings to support the
included concepts.
The writer presents some of
the central theoretical
concepts associated with a
specific instructional design
model and uses quotations
from primary readings to
support the included
concepts.
Sophisticated
The writer clearly presents the
central theoretical concepts
associated with a learning theory
and does so using key quotations
from relevant primary readings
to support the included concepts.
The writer clearly presents the
central theoretical concepts
associated with a specific
instructional design model and
does so using key quotations
from relevant primary readings
to support the included concepts.
• 13
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Link between
the theory and
the design
model
The links the writer makes
from the chosen
instructional design model
to learning theory are
weak and unconvincing.
The writer makes appropriate
connections between the chosen
instructional design model and
learning theory, but does so
awkwardly or in a limited way.
The writer makes appropriate
connections between the
chosen instructional design
model and learning theory
and does so convincingly.
Alignment of
instructional
goals to
learning theory
The alignment between
the learning theory and the
instructional product’s
goals is weak and
unconvincing.
The alignment between
the goals and instruction
designed is weak and
unconvincing.
The alignment between
the goals and the plans for
evaluating learning is
weak and unconvincing.
The alignment between the
learning theory and the
instructional product’s goals and
learning theory is appropriate,
but awkward or limited.
The alignment between goals
and instruction designed is
appropriate, but awkward or
limited.
The alignment between goals
and plans for evaluating learning
is appropriate, but awkward or
limited.
The alignment between the
learning theory and the
instructional product’s goals
is convincing.
Alignment of
goals to
designed
instruction
Alignment of
goals and
evaluation
The alignment between the
goals and instruction
designed is convincing.
The alignment between the
goals and plans for
evaluating learning is
convincing.
The writer makes clear and
insightful links between the
chosen instructional design
model and learning theory that
are strong, convincing, and
comprehensive.
The alignment between the
learning theory and the
instructional product’s goals is
strong, convincing, and
comprehensive.
The alignment between the goals
and instruction designed is
strong, convincing, and
comprehensive.
The alignment between the goals
and plans for evaluating learning
is strong, convincing, and
comprehensive.
• 14
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Appendix D
Goal 1: Connect instructional theory to instructional practice
Objective 2: describe theories of learning for the development of effective instruction and apply theories to specific instructional design models and
products
Measure 2: Capstone Rationale Rubric
Task: The culminating project for the IST Master’s Degree is the development of an authentic instructional design project in consultation with a
Subject Matter Expert (SME), your course instructor, and sometimes, media and or programming specialists. For this specific aspect of the final
project, you are to provide a strong rationale for your choice of design model and the theoretical grounding of that model. Specifically:
1. Provide a summary of the learning need and include your specific goal statement for the project.
2. Discuss the approaches to learning (based on Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2011) that are appropriate for this specific learning goal.
3. Provide a rationale for which of the three major learning theories best supports the design of instruction for your goal and the approaches you
have identified, referring to primary literature in the field of instructional design to help make this case.
4. Indicate the instructional design model(s) used in the development of your instructional materials and clearly identify how this choice is
appropriate for the learning goal you defined. Describe any modifications you made to these models.
5. Draw links between the model(s) used and the learning theory, again using primary sources to help make the case.
6. Make links between your goal, the specific performance or learning objectives, and the learning theory, being sure to provide discussion of
the alignment of these.
7. Describe how the instruction and the assessments align with the learning objectives you have identified.
See rubric beginning next page.
• 15
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
Capstone Rationale Rubric
Novice
Learning Need and Does not make the case
for the learning need
Goal Statement
and/or goal statement
Approaches to
Learning
Theoretical
Framework
The description of the
approaches to learning is
not clear or misses the
point; the link between
approaches and the
learning goal is unclear
Proficient
Has legitimate information
about the learning need, but
does not try to make the case
for or explain why the goal
statement is interesting, or the
next logical step
The description of the
approaches to learning
provides adequate coverage
and demonstrates that the
student is able to use the
material to apply to the
problem to create a learning
goal statement, with some
limitations
Incomplete; misses or
There is only adequate
omits important literature coverage of the literature or
or whole areas of
everything is mentioned
literature; does not go
without regard for focus; what
back far enough in the
others have said is listed with
literature; leaves out the little to no critical analysis and
most recent literature;
synthesis; critiques are derived
does not make clear links from other people; makes only
between theory and
a tentative link between the
approaches to learning
theory and approaches to
learning
Sophisticated
Presents well-articulated,
interesting, and important
information about the learning
need and makes a convincing case
for the goal statement
Exceptional
Interesting, comprehensive, coherent,
engaging, exciting, draws the reader in,
well organized; states the learning need
and shows why it is important; makes a
persuasive, convincing case for the goal
statement; leads to the goal statement;
exhibits depth and breadth of
understanding
The description of the approaches The description of the approaches to
to learning explains their relevance learning shows why the learning need is
and demonstrates that the student important; makes a persuasive,
can use the material and apply it to convincing case for the specific
the problem to create an
learning goal; exhibits depth and
appropriate learning goal
breadth of understanding; and puts forth
statement
the implications of the work
A very critical review of the
Creative; incisive; comprehensive;
relevant literature; shows insight; shows critical thinking about the
has a theme or perspective;
literature; has breadth and depth; uses
compares research and draws
the primary literature to make important
connections; integrates ideas in a points; uses theory substantively in
new way; draws conclusions;
making connections and explanations;
explains the literature’s relevance is expansive, brings in different points
for the problem; makes a good link of view; integrates material from related
between theory and approaches to fields; places the work within a larger
learning
context; makes a convincing link
between the theory and approaches to
learning
• 16
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
Instructional
Design Choices
Novice
Uses poor or disconnected
instructional design
models to address the
goal; is unable to
adequately link the choice
of model to the learning
theory identified as the
framework of the design
Proficient
Shows basic level of
competence; instructional
design choice fits the problem
and is adequately linked to the
theory identified; follows the
rules
Appropriate alignment
Alignment of Goal The alignment between
the learning theory and the between the instructional goal
to Theory
instructional product’s
and the theory, but a complete
goals is weak and
and convincing argument is
unconvincing.
not provided
The alignment between
Appropriate alignment
Alignment of
Objectives to Goal the instructional goal and between the instructional
the instructional objectives objectives and the goal, but a
is weak and unconvincing. complete and convincing
argument is not provided
The alignment between
Appropriate alignment
Alignment of
the instructional objectives between the instructional
Instructional
and the instructional
materials and the objective,
Materials to
materials is weak and
but a complete and convincing
Objectives
unconvincing.
argument is not provided
The alignment between
Appropriate alignment
Alignment of
the objectives and the
between the assessment
Evaluation to
assessment strategies is
strategies and the objectives,
Objectives
weak and unconvincing. but a complete and convincing
argument is not provided
LIU Post
Sophisticated
Applies instructional design
models in correct and creative
ways based on learning theory;
describes why a particular model
is being used, what it does, and
how it fits with the theory/
instruction
Exceptional
A well-designed instructional product
with proper links to learning theory; has
a level of complexity that goes beyond
the obvious; creatively applies existing
instructional design models to a novel
problem; uses appropriate modifications
built upon thoughtful consideration of
their strengths and weaknesses; shows
how these choices impact the
theoretical framework
Strong, convincing instructional High quality; a well-designed
goal with proper alignment with instructional goal with proper alignment
the theory; complexity is not
with the theory identified; has a level of
obvious
complexity that goes beyond the
obvious
Strong, convincing objectives with High quality; a well-designed set of
proper alignment with the goal;
objectives with proper alignment to the
complexity is not obvious
goal identified; has a level of
complexity that goes beyond the
obvious
Strong, convincing instructional High quality; well-designed
materials with proper alignment
instructional materials with proper
with the objectives; complexity is alignment with the objectives
not obvious
identified; has a level of complexity
that goes beyond the obvious
Strong, convincing assessment
High quality; well-designed assessment
strategies with proper alignment strategies with proper alignment with
with the objectives; complexity is the objectives identified; has a level of
not obvious
complexity that goes beyond the
obvious
• 17
Annotated Exemplar
Annual Assessment Report, 2012-2013, Year 1
LIU Post
• 18