(903) 892-2020


The Guide to WISR program learning outcomes, course rubrics, and program assessment procedures

can be found at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VyhSVztTyQd85C96HTg4a22N6sARCzIm/

The more than two dozen documents referred to in that guide can be found at:


This network of documents provides the conceptual rationale, as well as the specific procedures, rubrics and program learning outcomes used by faculty at WISR to assess and guide student learning, and to continually evaluate and improve the curriculum and instruction at WISR.

If a student disagrees with the faculty member’s assessment, they have the right to ask that another WISR faculty member, who is qualified in their area of study, review their work. There are also procedures whereby a student may file a grievance (see https://www.wisr.edu/academics/sample-page-2/grading-and-awarding-academic-credit/, regarding “Student Rights: Grievance Procedures). These instances are extremely rare at WISR over more than 40 years, because students and faculty are able to work out any differences by involving another faculty member to bring their perspective to the evaluation process.


Rubric to be used by WISR faculty as a guide in Oral Exams at WISR (course, mid-program, the Qualifying and Comprehensive EdD Oral Exams, and Graduation Review Board exams).

This Rubric is to be used as a guide by WISR faculty, in evaluating student performance in Course Oral Exams, Mid-Program Oral Exams, EdD Qualifying and Comprehensive Oral Exams, and Graduation Review Boards.  These rubrics are to be used to evaluate student oral exam performance when students are discussing their completed assignments (e.g., written papers, theses/dissertations, self-assessments, etc.), and with faculty also being mindful of assessing whether or not students have achieved course outcomes and/or degree program outcomes.


Faculty need not fill out these forms, unless requested to do so by the student (in which case the faculty member must comply with the request).

PASSING STANDARDS:  In any case faculty should use these forms to communicate clearly with students how and why they either fail to meet outcome standards, or when they need to make significant improvements going forward (see below):

    • if Student receives a “0” or “1” in any outcome area (1 = a “C”, 0 =”D/F”). in any category, they fail the exam, and must meet with faculty to discuss the work they must do in order to repeat the exam and pass the course, and/or move forward in their studies.
    •  if Student receives a “2” in any outcome area on a course or “mid-program” exam (that is, not the Graduation Review Board or not the Qualifying or Oral Comprehensive Exam for EdD students), they will still pass the exam. However, faculty are to discuss explicitly with the student, and inform the student of special efforts they should take, going forward in that outcome area, in order to progress toward acceptable achievement of degree program outcomes and eventual graduation.
    • In the Qualifying and Oral Comprehensive Exams for EdD Students, and in Graduation Review Boards for students in every degree program, students are expected to receive “3’s” in relation to most topics discussed, and in relation to most outcomes assessed. Students who perform in the “high range” of a “2” on some outcomes, or in relation to some topics, will pass the exam, so long as the student’s performance is clearly most often deserving of a score of “3” with regards to most topics discussed, and so long as there are no outcomes where there are questions about the student’s having achieved that outcome.
    • Further, there are additional rubrics, to be used along with these basic WISR rubrics, that are specifically designed to evaluate EdD student performance on the written and oral comprehensive exams, and the dissertation proposal. For more details, go to the online course site for EDD 693—the Comprehensive Assessment of Student Learning and Plans for the Dissertation:  https://sites.google.com/wisr.edu/edd693comprehensiveassessment/home

[to access this page, one must be an enrolled student with a wisr.edu email account]

 [to access this page, one must be an enrolled student with a wisr.edu email account]






Generally Adequate


Still Developing, with Deficiencies





Overall Understanding


Shows a deep/robust understanding of the topic with a fully developed argument per the categories below Shows a partial understanding of the topic, and/or not quite a fully developed argument per the categories below Shows a superficial understanding of the topic, argument not developed enough per the categories below Shows no understanding of the topic and no argument per the categories below


Clearly articulates a position or argument


Articulates a position or argument that is somewhat incomplete or limited in scope Articulates a position or argument that is unfocused or ambiguous Does not articulate a position or argument




Presents evidence that is relevant and accurate


Presents sufficient amount of evidence to support argument


Presents evidence that is mostly relevant and/or mostly accurate, but that has some gaps.


Presents only limited evidence to support argument

Presents evidence that is somewhat inaccurate and/or irrelevant, but corrects when prompted


Does not present enough evidence to support argument, but augments when prompted

Presents a lot of inaccurate and/or irrelevant evidence


Doesn’t present enough evidence to support argument, even when prompted repeatedly




Fully discusses the major implications of the argument or position Adequately discusses some of the major implications of the position Discusses minor implications (missing the major ones) OR does not discuss major implications adequately Doesn’t discuss the implications of the argument or position



There is logic in the progression of ideas There are a few areas of disjointedness or intermittent lack of logical progression of ideas Ideas are somewhat disjointed and/or do not always flow logically, making it a bit difficult to follow Ideas are disjointed and/or do not flow logically, hence argument is very difficult to follow


Did not have to prompt with probing questions at all


Prompted minimally to aid their oral presentation and discussion (one or two probing questions) Prompted a lot (a series of probing questions)



(*Adapted from Grading Rubric for Upper Division History Course, Susan Ambrose, Carnegie Mellon University—Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, Carnegie Mellon University:  https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/teach/rubrics.html )



Learning Goals, Outcomes and Measures for Each WISR Degree Program: https://sites.google.com/wisr.edu/evaluatinglearningatwisr/mission-goals-objectivesoutcomes

[to access this page, one must be an enrolled student with a wisr.edu email account]