ODU uses embedded, authentic assessments in general education courses. Within each course and across courses faculty agree to assignments that align with the General Education outcomes. At the end of the academic year, faculty gather to read and rate assignments using a common rubric at an annual Assessment Summit. Faculty provide a series of actionable recommendations based on their review of the artifacts.
As appropriate, programs use the assessment results to implement changes designed to improve student learning. Programs may use results to inform faculty development efforts, promote revisions to course assignments, enhance the assessment process, and/or strengthen the student learning outcomes.
See assessment results, recommendations, and improvements below.
Assessment Competency Reports
Latest Reports
2016-2017
2024-25
- Critical Thinking Assessment Results
- Critical Thinking Rubric
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding.
Meets Standard: 3
- Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds unknown.
Needs Attention: 1
- Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description.
Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.
Meets Standard: 3
- Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning.
Needs Attention: 1
- Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others' assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.
Meets Standard: 3
- Identifies own and others' assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others' assumptions than one's own (or vice versa).
Needs Attention: 1
- Shows an emerging awareness of present assumptions (sometimes labels assertions as assumptions). Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue. Limits of position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) are acknowledged. Others' points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).
Meets Standard: 3
- Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) takes into account the complexities of an issue. Others' points of view are acknowledged within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).
Approaches Standard: 2
- Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.
Needs Attention: 1
- Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is stated, but is simplistic and obvious.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding.
Meets Standard: 3
- Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds unknown.
Needs Attention: 1
- Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description.
Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.
Meets Standard: 3
- Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning.
Needs Attention: 1
- Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation. Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact, without question.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others' assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.
Meets Standard: 3
- Identifies own and others' assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others' assumptions than one's own (or vice versa).
Needs Attention: 1
- Shows an emerging awareness of present assumptions (sometimes labels assertions as assumptions). Begins to identify some contexts when presenting a position.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue. Limits of position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) are acknowledged. Others' points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).
Meets Standard: 3
- Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) takes into account the complexities of an issue. Others' points of view are acknowledged within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).
Approaches Standard: 2
- Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.
Needs Attention: 1
- Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is stated, but is simplistic and obvious.
Latest Reports:
2017-2018
Latest Reports:
2013-2014
- Information Literacy & Research Assessment Report
- Information Literacy & Research General Education Assessment Rubric
- 2014 Assessment Summit Results
2021-22
Next Assessed:
2025-26
Latest Reports:
2014-2015
- Impact of Technology Assessment Report
- Impact of Technology General Education Assessment Rubric
- Assessment Summit Results
Latest Reports:
2016-2017
2013
Latest Reports:
2018-2019
- Literature Assessment Report
- Literature General Education Assessment Rubric
- Assessment Summit Results
2012-2013
- Literature Assessment Report
- Assessment Summit Results
Latest Reports:
2022-2023
- 2022-23 Oral Communication Assessment Report
- Oral Comm 101 Rubric
- Oral Comm 101 Standard Critique Form
- 2022-23 Oral Communication General Education Summit Results
- Oral Communication Plan to Improve
2017-2018
- Oral Communication Assessment Report
- Oral Communication General Education Assessment Rubric
- Assessment Summit Results
2013
- Assessment Summit Results
Next Assessed:
2026 - 2027
Latest Reports:
2019-2021
- Philosophy Assessment Report
- Philosophy General Education Assessment Rubric
- Assessment Summit Results
2013-2014
- Assessment Summit Results
Latest Reports:
2019-2021
- Scientific Reasoning Assessment Report
- Scientific Reasoning General Education Assessment Rubric
- Assessment Summit Results
2013-2014
Latest Reports:
Latest Reports:
2016-2017
- Lower Division Writing Assessment Report
- Writing - Lower Division ENGL 200 Level - Rubric General Education Assessment
- Assessment Summit Results
2013
- Assessment Summit Results
Latest Reports
2016-2017
- Writing - Upper Division - Assessment Report
- Writing - Upper Division - General Education Assessment Rubric
- Assessment Summit Results
2024-2025
- Upper Level Writing Assessment Summit Results
- Upper Level Writing Rubric
- Based on the VALUE Rubric for Written Communication from: Rhodes, T. L. (ED.). (2009). Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement: Tips and Tools for Using Rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
- Note: Raters are encouraged to assign “Needs Attention” to any paper or collection of papers that does not meet the minimum criterion OR does not address the student learning outcome
Includes consideration of audience, purpose, and circumstances surrounding the writing task(s).
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to the assigned task(s) and focuses all elements of the work.
Meets Standard: 3
- Demonstrates adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose and a clear focus on the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task aligns with audience, purpose, and context).
Approaches Standard: 2
- Demonstrates awareness of context, audience, purpose, and to the assigned task(s) (e.g., begins to show awareness of audience's perceptions and assumptions).
Needs Attention: 1
- Demonstrates minimal attention to context, audience, purpose, and to the assigned task(s) (e.g., expectations of instructor or self as audience).
Produce discipline-specific written communication, reflecting scrutiny in content.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to illustrate mastery of the subject, conveying the writer's understanding, and shaping of the whole work.
Meets Standard: 3
- Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to explore ideas within the context of the discipline and shaping of the whole work.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Uses appropriate and relevant content to develop and explore ideas through most of the work.
Needs Attention: 1
- Uses appropriate and relevant content to develop simple ideas in some parts of the work.
Execute the discourse conventions most commonly used in the student's major disciplines.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Demonstrates detailed attention to and successful execution of a wide range of conventions to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s) including organization, content, presentation, formatting, and stylistic choices.
Meets Standard: 3
- Demonstrates consistent use of important conventions particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s), including organization, content, presentation, and stylistic choices.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Follows expectations appropriate to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s) for basic organization, content, and presentation.
Needs Attention: 1
- Attempts to use a consistent system for basic organization and presentation.
Differentiate among data sources those that are pertinent and legitimate to the scholarship of the discipline.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Demonstrates skillful use of high-quality, credible, relevant sources to develop ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of writing.
Meets Standard: 3
- Demonstrates consistent use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of writing.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing.
Needs Attention: 1
- Demonstrates an attempt to use sources to support ideas in the writing.
Produce discipline-specific written communication free from mechanical errors.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Uses eloquent language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency and is virtually error-free.
Meets Standard: 3
- Uses straightforward language that generally conveys meaning to readers. The language in the artifact has few errors.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Uses language that generally conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although writing may include some errors.
Needs Attention: 1
- Uses language that sometimes impedes meaning because of too many errors.
Includes consideration of audience, purpose, and circumstances surrounding the writing task(s).
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to the assigned task(s) and focuses all elements of the work.
Meets Standard: 3
- Demonstrates adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose and a clear focus on the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task aligns with audience, purpose, and context).
Approaches Standard: 2
- Demonstrates awareness of context, audience, purpose, and to the assigned task(s) (e.g., begins to show awareness of audience's perceptions and assumptions).
Needs Attention: 1
- Demonstrates minimal attention to context, audience, purpose, and to the assigned task(s) (e.g., expectations of instructor or self as audience).
Produce discipline-specific written communication, reflecting scrutiny in content.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to illustrate mastery of the subject, conveying the writer's understanding, and shaping of the whole work.
Meets Standard: 3
- Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to explore ideas within the context of the discipline and shaping of the whole work.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Uses appropriate and relevant content to develop and explore ideas through most of the work.
Needs Attention: 1
- Uses appropriate and relevant content to develop simple ideas in some parts of the work.
Execute the discourse conventions most commonly used in the student's major disciplines.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Demonstrates detailed attention to and successful execution of a wide range of conventions to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s) including organization, content, presentation, formatting, and stylistic choices.
Meets Standard: 3
- Demonstrates consistent use of important conventions particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s), including organization, content, presentation, and stylistic choices.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Follows expectations appropriate to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s) for basic organization, content, and presentation.
Needs Attention: 1
- Attempts to use a consistent system for basic organization and presentation.
Differentiate among data sources those that are pertinent and legitimate to the scholarship of the discipline.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Demonstrates skillful use of high-quality, credible, relevant sources to develop ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of writing.
Meets Standard: 3
- Demonstrates consistent use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of writing.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing.
Needs Attention: 1
- Demonstrates an attempt to use sources to support ideas in the writing.
Produce discipline-specific written communication free from mechanical errors.
Exceeds Standard: 4
- Uses eloquent language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency and is virtually error-free.
Meets Standard: 3
- Uses straightforward language that generally conveys meaning to readers. The language in the artifact has few errors.
Approaches Standard: 2
- Uses language that generally conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although writing may include some errors.
Needs Attention: 1
- Uses language that sometimes impedes meaning because of too many errors.