From Spring 2019 through Spring 2024, ILO assessment grew from small pilots into a steady practice. After the first rubrics launched, the number of scored student artifacts climbed to a stable band of roughly 5–6 thousand per term once all seven ILOs were active (Spring 2021 onward). That stability matters: it shows faculty were routinely scoring work across the ILOs.

In Fall 2024, when we launched the ILO Commitment Initiative for faculty teaching AGEC-designated courses (optional for others), participation shifted from steady to scaled. Scored artifacts nearly tripled that term (to ~14,000) and participation remained elevated (~11,000) in Spring 2025. The stacked bars make clear this wasn’t the result of a single rubric or discipline; every ILO area expanded, indicating broad engagement across the college.

Why this matters for our next step—treating General Education as a program under the Reimagined AGEC—is coverage and confidence. With thousands more artifacts coming from AGEC courses, we have the volume and breadth to form discipline cohorts, calibrate scoring, and track improvement in a way that represents Gen Ed as students actually experience it.

Updated 08/2025

This view compares average ILO rubric scores (1–4, with 3 = proficient) in 100- vs 200-level courses for Fall 2024–Spring 2025. 

• While not a perfect proxy for student progression as students may take classes out of sequence, students in 200-level sections score higher in six of seven ILO areas: Career Goals & Workplace Skills, Communication, Diversity Awareness & Appreciation, Information Literacy, Quantitative Reasoning & Analysis, Thinking. 

• Students meet or exceed proficiency in four: Career, Communication, Diversity, Information Literacy. 

• That pattern matches what we’ve seen in earlier years; for public reporting we’re centering on the most recent terms because the ILO Commitment Initiative dramatically expanded participation and gives the clearest picture of current practice.

Note that two categories aggregate multiple rubrics. 

• Communication blends Written (81%), Oral (15%), and Visual (4%), so the average is driven mainly by Written. 

• Thinking blends Critical (92%) and Creative (8%), so results largely reflect Critical Thinking. 

Three caveats help interpret the chart. 

• Quantitative Reasoning & Analysis is similar across levels and remains below proficiency. If this trend continues, it will be an early target as we assess General Education under the reimagined AGEC. Additionally, Quantitative non-submissions are 11% (vs. the 6% average), mirroring lower retention patterns in some STEM areas; we are hopeful this year’s retention focus will narrow this gap.

• Thinking is modestly higher at the 200 level but remains just under the proficiency threshold (3). Because it draws evidence from the widest mix of disciplines across AGEC areas, differences in assignment types and rubric interpretation likely contribute. We are still in the data-gathering phase ahead of AGEC implementation and will continue to monitor this pattern.

• Personal & Community Well-Being is the outlier: 100-level averages are significantly higher. A deeper look shows this is driven by a small number of high-enrollment 200-level courses with lower scores on one of the six Well-Being rubric items ("reviews prior learning"), so we are exploring norming and assignment–rubric fit rather than treating it as a progression issue.

Updated 08/2025