E squared plus I squared framework, Step 3 of 4 · Evaluate
Evaluate: Institutional Assessment Dashboard
Practice reading evidence the way a thoughtful reviewer would. Every chart below uses fictional demonstration data from the imaginary "Riverbend State College."
All institutional data on this page are fictional and created for demonstration. The goal is to model responsible interpretation — not to display attractive graphs.
Avg. outcome achievement
76%
Across five institutional outcomes
6-year completion rate
67%
Up 9 points since 2021
Stakeholder participation
48%
Averaged across four groups
Evidence inventory ≥75%
3 of 5
Collection only — not evidence quality
Student Learning Outcome Achievement
Percent of students meeting the benchmark, by institutional outcome. The 75% achievement target is illustrative and institution-defined for this fictional example—not a universal accreditation requirement.
| Area | Percent |
|---|---|
| Critical Thinking | 78% |
| Communication | 84% |
| Quantitative Reasoning | 66% |
| Ethical Reasoning | 81% |
| Information Literacy | 72% |
Quantitative Reasoning: 66% (9 points below target; -10 vs. average)
Ten points below the outcome average and below the target. Useful next evidence: course-level results, rubric criteria, and whether the gap concentrates in particular courses.
What this may suggest: Quantitative reasoning (66%) trails the other outcomes. Useful next evidence: course-level results, rubric criteria, and whether the gap concentrates in particular programs or student groups.
About this measure
- What it measures:
- The share of assessed students whose work met the rubric benchmark for each institutional outcome.
- Population:
- Fictional sample of student work collected in general education courses during one assessment cycle; not every student is assessed.
- Comparison point:
- An illustrative, institution-defined achievement target of 75% (not a universal accreditation requirement), plus the 76% average across the five outcomes.
- Limitations:
- One cycle of data; samples and rubrics differ by outcome, so outcomes are not perfectly comparable. Results are not disaggregated here.
- Evidence that would strengthen it:
- Multiple cycles, course- and program-level results, rubric calibration data, and results disaggregated by student group.
Program Completion Rates
Six-year completion rate by entering cohort.
| Cohort | Percent |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 58% |
| 2022 | 61% |
| 2023 | 64% |
| 2024 | 63% |
| 2025 | 67% |
What this may suggest: A generally positive trend with a small dip in 2024. Before celebrating or worrying, examine trends by program, cohort, and relevant student populations — averages can hide both bright spots and inequities. A change after an intervention does not, by itself, show the intervention caused that change; consider cohort differences, other changes, and comparable evidence.
About this measure
- What it measures:
- The share of each entering cohort that completed a program within six years.
- Population:
- Fictional first-time, full-time entering cohorts labeled by year.
- Comparison point:
- The institution's own prior cohorts (trend over time).
- Limitations:
- Excludes transfer and part-time students; one-year changes like the 2024 dip may be normal variation.
- Evidence that would strengthen it:
- Rates by program and student population, transfer-out outcomes, and retention at earlier milestones.
Stakeholder Participation
Share of each group engaged in improvement activities this year.
| Area | Percent |
|---|---|
| Faculty | 74% |
| Staff | 52% |
| Students | 38% |
| Employers | 29% |
What this may suggest: Faculty engage at nearly twice the rate of students and employers. Useful next evidence: what barriers each group reports, and whether participation formats (timing, channel, compensation) fit their lives. Rates alone do not establish engagement quality, representativeness, or impact. Examine whose voices are missing and how stakeholder input informs institutional decisions and improvements.
About this measure
- What it measures:
- The share of each group that took part in at least one improvement activity (meetings, reviews, surveys) this year.
- Population:
- Fictional counts of faculty, staff, enrolled students, and employer partners invited to participate.
- Comparison point:
- Comparison across groups within the same year; no external comparison.
- Limitations:
- Group sizes differ greatly, and a single attendance counts the same as sustained involvement.
- Evidence that would strengthen it:
- Participation over several years, depth and representativeness of involvement, feedback on barriers, and documented examples of input informing decisions and improvements.
Evidence Collection Progress
Completeness of the evidence inventory by area. Document collection does not establish evidence quality, relevance, sufficiency, or demonstrated impact; even a complete inventory needs critical review.
What this may suggest: The improvement area (58%) is the thinnest part of the inventory — a common pattern, since documenting that changes worked requires waiting a full cycle. Consider scheduling evidence capture into the improvement plan itself.
Inventory collection gaps (below illustrative 75% target)
- Student Learning — 71% complete
- Improvement — 58% complete
About this measure
- What it measures:
- How complete the evidence inventory is in each area, compared with a planned list of evidence items.
- Population:
- Fictional planned evidence items for each area of the institution's self-study.
- Comparison point:
- A fictional 75% completeness target.
- Limitations:
- Completeness counts whether planned items have been collected, not their quality, relevance, sufficiency, or demonstrated impact. A collected category is not automatically satisfactory.
- Evidence that would strengthen it:
- Quality reviews of the evidence collected and whether each item has been used in decisions.
Turn a finding into a plan
Select a finding, then create an improvement plan. You can edit everything before saving.
Create Improvement PlanEvidence becomes valuable when it drives action.
Take one finding from this dashboard and turn it into a concrete, measurable plan.
Continue to Improve