As students progress in the program, faculty annually review student performances to assess the degree to which students are achieving program goals as articulated on the Student Outcomes and Professional Competencies Rubric. These assessments are based upon the data collected through critical performances.  This data allows for continuous program improvement as successive cohort groups move through the program.  

Specifically, program faculty will follow the steps outlined below to proceed with program assessment. This program assessment is founded on the student outcomes and the professional competencies.  
  1. STEP ONE: Students complete the critical performances according to directions and criteria provided by professors.  Copies of student work from the four critical performances are gathered by the Program Coordinator.  
  2. STEP TWO: The Program Coordinator gathers faculty together annually for purposes of assessing student performance on critical performances (two each year).  Program faculty review student performance as reflected in data drawn from critical performance rubrics.
  3. STEP THREE: Faculty then use the Student Outcomes and Professional Competencies Rubric to assess the program based on review of student performance on critical performances.  
  4. STEP FOUR: The Program Coordinator reports to the Department Head regarding faculty conclusions related to student  performance in the program and the degree to which student outcomes were reached and professional competencies demonstrated.  
  5. STEP FIVE: Copies of student work are archived in the Department Office. 

The data linked below is structured around the Student Outcomes and Professional Competencies Rubric.  The rubric is open-ended and invites three levels of responses
  • Strong Evidence
  • Some Evidence
  • Little Evidence
The data reported reflects the faculty's assessment of the overall PROGRAM.   Work produced by students for Critical Performances is the basis for making judgments about the program.  However, such assessments are not a critique of the students individually but rather the general rigor or focus of the program.  For example, as a group the majority of students may all produce work at the "exemplary" level for a given crtical performance.  However, after reading the exemplary work students produce, the faculty may determine that the particular critical performance uncovers a lack of rigor in one or more areas of the program.  Thereby this process functions as an assessment of the program and not individual students--a subtle but significant difference.