Section II
Comprehensive assessment matrix
Evidence for HLC Core Component 3.E. Direct measures identified by course, assignment, method, and benchmark.
The matrix maps each course to the PLOs it assesses, the key assignments used as direct evidence, the assessment method, and the required benchmark. Data is collected each semester and aggregated annually.
Foundational gateway courses · freshman–sophomore
REL 106GatewayPLO 1
Key assignmentBiblical Literacy Exam
Method50-question comprehensive exam covering OT/NT structure, key narratives, major themes
Benchmark75% minimum score
REL 200GatewayPLO 1PLO 6
Key assignmentBook Overview Paper (10 pp) + Canonical Theme Analysis
MethodResearch paper, 8–10 scholarly sources, Turabian format checklist
Benchmark80% on Thesis, Evidence & Citation Rubric
REL 201GatewayPLO 1PLO 6
Key assignmentGospel Comparison Essay + Pauline Theology Synthesis
MethodAnalytical essay (8–10 pp) with peer review
Benchmark80% on Biblical Analysis Rubric
REL 202GatewayPLO 2
Key assignmentDoctrinal Position Papers — 5 pp × 3 doctrines
MethodWritten papers with biblical support on assigned doctrines
Benchmark80% on Theological Argumentation Rubric
REL 203GatewayPLO 1PLO 3
Key assignmentSecond Temple Judaism Research Paper
MethodHistorical analysis of Jewish sectarian movements
Benchmark75% on Historical Context Rubric
REL 215GatewayPLO 3PLO 6
Key assignmentPatristic Primary Source Analysis — 3 sources × 4-pp analyses
MethodAnnotated analysis of Augustine, Athanasius, or Chrysostom texts
Benchmark80% on Primary Source Analysis Rubric
REL 216GatewayPLO 3PLO 6
Key assignmentReformation Comparative Study — 12-pp research paper
MethodComparing Luther, Calvin, and Anabaptist movements
Benchmark80% on Historical Research Rubric
CED 204GatewayPLO 5
Key assignmentTeaching Philosophy Draft + Lesson Plan
Method3-pp philosophy statement + complete lesson plan with objectives
Benchmark75% on Pedagogical Design Rubric
Integration phase · junior year
REL 317IntegrationPLO 3PLO 4PLO 7
Key assignmentPrimary Source Portfolio (5 sources) + Prophetic Witness Essay
MethodCurated collection with 2-pp analytical essays per source; 8-pp synthesis on contemporary application
Benchmark85% on Cultural Competency Rubric
REL 318IntegrationPLO 1PLO 6
Key assignmentExegetical Paper (15 pp) on assigned pericope
MethodFull exegetical analysis: textual criticism, grammatical analysis, historical context, theological synthesis, homiletical application
Benchmark85% on Exegesis Rubric (8 dimensions)
REL 302IntegrationPLO 2PLO 7
Key assignmentCase Study Analyses — 3 × 5 pp
MethodEthical decision-making frameworks applied to contemporary issues
Benchmark80% on Ethical Reasoning Rubric
REL 308IntegrationPLO 2PLO 5
Key assignmentWorship Service Design Project
MethodComplete worship order with theological rationale, scripture integration, and cultural contextualization (12–15 pp)
Benchmark85% on Worship Design Rubric
REL 322IntegrationPLO 4
Key assignmentSpiritual Disciplines Journal + Formation Theology Paper (8–10 pp)
MethodWeekly reflections of 500 words each + theological synthesis
Benchmark75% on Formation Rubric
REL 309IntegrationPLO 2PLO 6
Key assignmentPhilosophical Argument Analysis
MethodCritical engagement with two philosophers (Aquinas, Kierkegaard, or contemporary) on theological themes
Benchmark80% on Philosophical Analysis Rubric
REL 325IntegrationPLO 5PLO 7
Key assignmentMinistry Strategic Plan (20–25 pp)
MethodComprehensive plan: mission/vision, SWOT analysis, budget, staffing, assessment metrics
Benchmark85% on Strategic Planning Rubric
CED 303IntegrationPLO 6
Key assignmentResearch Methods Portfolio
MethodAnnotated bibliography (15 sources) + research proposal (10 pp) + citation exam
Benchmark90% on Research Proficiency Rubric; 100% on citation exam
Capstone / professional phase · senior year
REL 403CapstonePLO 2PLO 6PLO 7
Key assignmentTheology Manuscript (25–30 pp) + Oral Defense
MethodOriginal theological argument engaging Scripture, systematic categories, Baptist distinctives, and contemporary application
Benchmark85% on Capstone Theology Rubric; oral defense rated Proficient
REL 408CapstonePLO 3PLO 5PLO 7
Key assignmentContextualized Ministry Plan (15–20 pp)
MethodCross-cultural or urban ministry design with theological foundations, cultural analysis, and implementation strategy
Benchmark85% on Missional Competency Rubric
REL 415CapstonePLO 2PLO 5PLO 7
Key assignmentChurch Model Analysis & Personal Ecclesiology (12–15 pp)
MethodComparative study of three ecclesiological models + articulation of personal convictions
Benchmark85% on Ecclesiological Reasoning Rubric
REL 430CapstonePLO 2PLO 6PLO 7
Key assignmentApologetic Essay (12–15 pp) + Public Presentation (15 min)
MethodPaper addressing a contemporary objection to Christianity + Q&A presentation
Benchmark85% written; 80% presentation
Concentration-specific capstone assessments
CED 404Christian EducationPLO 5PLO 7
Key assignmentCurriculum Design Portfolio — 12-week curriculum
MethodLesson plans, assessments, theological objectives, age-appropriate pedagogy
Benchmark85% on Curriculum Design Rubric + external educator review
CED 410Church AdministrationPLO 5PLO 7
Key assignmentOrganizational Leadership Case Study (20 pp)
MethodReal-world ministry case analysis with strategic recommendations, budget projections, implementation timeline
Benchmark85% on Leadership Competency Rubric + peer evaluation
CED 320Worship ArtsPLO 5PLO 7
Key assignmentWorship Leadership Portfolio — 3 video submissions + 15-pp theology paper
MethodThree worship leading instances + worship theology paper + music selection rationale
Benchmark85% on Worship Leadership Rubric + external worship leader evaluation
REL 425Homiletics & PastoralPLO 5PLO 7
Key assignmentSermon Portfolio — 3 video sermons + manuscripts
MethodExpository, narrative, and prophetic sermons (20–25 min each) with full manuscripts and self-critiques
Benchmark85% on Homiletical Excellence Rubric + external preacher evaluation
Tier 1Course-embedded assessments, formative and summative
Tier 2Transition point benchmarks — gateway, integration, capstone
Tier 3Program-level aggregation in the annual assessment cycle
Section VI
Assessment cycle and continuous improvement
Evidence for HLC Core Components 3.E and 4.C. This is the closing-the-loop mechanism.
Five annual phases govern the collection, analysis, and use of assessment data. The cycle connects findings to curricular change and documents that connection.
Phase 1 · May–June
Data collection and aggregation
Compile all rubric scores across sections; aggregate by PLO using the assessment matrix; calculate percent proficient per PLO; compile Gateway, Integration, and Capstone transition data; collect indirect measures — exit surveys, alumni data, employer feedback.
OutputComprehensive Assessment Data Report, distributed by June 30. Owner: Assessment Coordinator.
Phase 2 · July–August
Faculty analysis and interpretation
Individual faculty review the full data report and submit written responses identifying strengths (above 85%) and concerns (below 80%). Three working groups by PLO cluster — Group A (PLO 1, 6), Group B (PLO 2, 3), Group C (PLO 4, 5, 7). Disaggregate by concentration, instructor, and student population. Root-cause analysis using the 5-Whys protocol.
OutputThree working group reports, due August 15. Owners: all full-time faculty and the Department Chair.
Phase 3 · September
Department assessment retreat
Full-day retreat, all faculty required. Aggregate data presentation and multi-year comparison; working group reports; root-cause analysis; action planning to prioritize three to five improvements; assign task forces and accountability measures.
OutputAssessment Findings Report and Program Improvement Action Plan, due September 30 to the Academic Dean. Owner: Division leadership.
Phase 4 · October–December
Curricular revisions and implementation
Curriculum Committee reviews and approves all changes; task forces implement approved revisions; faculty development workshops and grading equity training; rubric calibration norming sessions.
OutputRevised syllabi in the LMS by December 1. Owners: Curriculum Committee and task forces.
Phase 5 · January–April
Monitoring and formative assessment
Implement changes in the new academic year; mid-cycle progress check in March; collect formative data on implemented changes; voluntary student focus groups; faculty self-reports on implementation fidelity.
OutputMid-Cycle Progress Memo, due April 15 to the Academic Dean. Program Assessment Report to the VPAA each fall. Owners: Assessment Coordinator and faculty.
Three-year assessment rotation
All PLOs are assessed annually through course-embedded data. One subset receives deep-dive analysis each year.
Year 1AY 2026–27
Deep-dive PLOsPLO 1, 2, 6 — academic foundation
Special initiativeBaseline data collection for all new rubrics
Faculty focusRubric norming and inter-rater reliability
ReportingYear 1 Annual Assessment Report, Fall 2027
Year 2AY 2027–28
Deep-dive PLOsPLO 3, 4 — cultural and spiritual
Special initiativeAlumni survey launch, 1-year post-graduation, Class of 2026
Faculty focusGrading equity and disaggregated analysis
ReportingYear 2 Annual Assessment Report, Fall 2028
Year 3AY 2028–29
Deep-dive PLOsPLO 5, 7 — ministry practice
Special initiativeExternal practitioner focus groups
Faculty focusExternal review integration and capstone standards
ReportingYear 3 report with full trend analysis, Fall 2029
Section VII
HLC alignment and implementation timeline
Where this plan supplies evidence under the 2025 Criteria
3.AEducational programs
RequirementLearning goals and outcomes reflect rigor commensurate with college-level work, by program level and content.
Where addressedSection I — seven PLOs with sub-competencies and defined performance levels.
3.EAssessment of student learning
RequirementThe institution improves the quality of educational programs based on its assessment of student learning.
Where addressedSections II, III, IV, V — direct measures, transition benchmarks, rubrics, intervention thresholds. Section VI documents the use of results.
3.FProgram review
RequirementThe institution improves its curriculum based on periodic program review.
Where addressedSection VI, Phases 3 and 4 — the retreat, Program Improvement Action Plan, and Curriculum Committee action. Supported by the separate program review document.
3.GStudent success outcomes
RequirementStudent success outcomes demonstrate continuous improvement against the populations served and peer benchmarks.
Where addressedSection III transition benchmarks; alumni and employer measures in Phase 1 and the rotation plan. Peer benchmarking remains to be specified.
4.CPlanning for quality improvement
RequirementThe institution engages in systematic strategic planning for quality improvement, relying on data.
Where addressedSection VI — the five-phase annual cycle and multi-year rotation, with reporting to the VPAA.
Issues identified in internal review
Source of the issues listed below
These issues were identified in the AI-assisted internal review recorded in Section VIII. They were not cited by the Higher Learning Commission, and this plan does not represent them as findings of any accreditation review. The division examined each and adopted it as a legitimate weakness in the prior version of the plan.
Should HLC subsequently identify deficiencies through a formal review, those should be recorded separately and distinguished from the items below by source and date.
Non-measurable outcomes
How addressedAll seven PLOs carry specific sub-competencies and numerical performance benchmarks (Section I).
No assessment matrix
How addressedA matrix maps 24 courses to PLOs with named key assignments, methods, and benchmarks (Section II).
Inadequate direct measures
How addressedMultiple rubric-based direct measures per PLO; four standardized rubrics supplied in full (Section IV).
Closing the loop not documented
How addressedA five-phase annual cycle with named owners, deliverables, and deadlines, reporting to the Academic Dean and VPAA (Section VI).
Transition points undefined
How addressedOperational procedures for Gateway, Integration, and Capstone benchmarks with pass standards and remediation pathways (Section III).
Instructor discretion over PLO mapping
How addressedCurriculum Committee approval required for all changes to PLO mapping. No unilateral instructor authority.
Punitive improvement process
How addressedThe Program Improvement Plan operates as a student support mechanism. It does not delay degree progression.
Implementation timeline
Fall 2026 · immediate
Vote, record, circulate
Faculty vote on the revised PLOs, rubrics, and this plan. Record the vote and execute the signature block. Update all syllabi with revised PLO language and the assessment transparency statement. Provide the approved plan to the Accreditation Liaison Officer for the institutional evidence file.
Fall 2026
Stand up the system
Appoint the Department Assessment Coordinator. Configure the assessment data management system. Rubric calibration Round 1: all full-time faculty score three to five sample papers; target inter-rater reliability of 85% agreement within 0.5 points. Recruit and orient external capstone reviewers. Begin baseline data collection. Year 1 primary focus: PLO 1, 2, 6.
Spring 2027
First benchmarks administered
Rubric calibration Round 2. Gateway Benchmark administration. Integration Benchmark junior reviews. Mid-Cycle Progress Memo to the Academic Dean by April 15. Capstone presentations and defenses.
May–September 2027
First complete annual cycle
Phase 1 data aggregation (May–June), Phase 2 faculty analysis (July–August), Phase 3 department retreat (September). Assessment Findings Report and Program Improvement Action Plan due September 30.
Fall 2027
First annual report
First Annual Assessment Report prepared and submitted to the VPAA. Phase 4 curricular revisions. Revised syllabi uploaded by December 1.
AY 2028–29
Year 3 rotation
PLO 5 and 7 deep-dive, external practitioner focus groups, full three-year trend analysis.
Note on the original timeline
Version 1.0 scheduled the faculty vote for Spring 2026 and full implementation for Fall 2026. That vote was not recorded. The timeline above resets to the current term rather than reporting a milestone that did not occur.
Section VIII
Record of AI-assisted internal review
What this section is, and what it is not
This is a disclosure, not a validation. Two internal review passes were performed on this plan using generative AI models. Their observations informed the drafting of Sections I through VII. They are recorded here so that any reader can weigh them accurately.
These reviews are not peer review. An AI model has no institutional standing, no accountability, and no capacity to verify that anything described in this plan actually occurs. It cannot observe a classroom, read a student portfolio, or confirm that a rubric was applied. Its assessment is limited to the internal coherence of the document in front of it.
No part of this plan has been reviewed or approved by the Higher Learning Commission, by an HLC peer reviewer, or by any external evaluator. Version 1.0 described this section as a "Formal HLC Criterion 4 Adjudication" conducted by a "Second HLC Peer Reviewer" and marked the plan "Approved for Implementation." Those characterizations were inaccurate and have been withdrawn.
Disclosure of models and scope
Complete the fields below before circulating. Every bracketed field must be filled or the section removed.
First review
Model and versionMODEL NAME AND VERSION
DateDATE
Scope and prompt summaryWhat the model was asked to do — e.g. identify gaps in measurability, mapping, and direct measures in the prior assessment plan. State whether the model had access to any HLC correspondence, and if so which.
Second review
Model and versionMODEL NAME AND VERSION
DateDATE
Scope and prompt summaryWhat the model was asked to do — e.g. evaluate whether the revised plan resolved the issues raised in the first pass. State the documents provided as input.
Human oversight
AI output was reviewed, edited, and adopted or rejected by NAME, TITLE, who is responsible for the content of this plan. The models did not select the benchmarks, set the proficiency targets, or determine the assessment schedule; those judgments are the division's.
Observations carried forward
Raised in the AI-assisted passes and adopted by the division after review. Recorded as observations, not findings, and carrying no evaluative weight of their own.
- The revised plan moves from activity tracking toward competency measurement, with numerical benchmarks attached to each PLO rather than general aspirations.
- The assessment matrix identifies where direct evidence is collected for each PLO, which the prior version did not.
- Three transition gates at 60, 90, and 122 credit hours create checkpoints for cumulative learning rather than relying solely on course-level grades.
- Each transition benchmark carries a defined remediation pathway, so that raising standards does not by itself delay degree progression.
- The Developing benchmark for PLO 4 acknowledges that character formation is developmental and cannot be held to the same threshold as content mastery.
- Requiring Curriculum Committee approval for changes to PLO mapping protects consistency of the evidence trail across sections and instructors.
Limits the division acknowledges
Identified during review and not yet resolved. Listed here rather than omitted.
- No baseline data exists yet. Every benchmark in this plan is a target, not a measured result. The plan's effectiveness cannot be evaluated until at least one full cycle completes.
- Peer benchmarking under 3.G has not been specified. Comparison institutions and data sources need to be identified.
- External capstone reviewers have not yet been recruited or oriented, though several benchmarks depend on their evaluations.
- Faculty capacity is assumed, not confirmed. Full-day retreats, written individual analyses, and two calibration rounds annually should be checked against actual staffing before adoption.
- No one outside the institution has read this plan. External review is being arranged; see the record below.
External review record
The division distinguishes two external roles. They require different qualifications and should not be filled interchangeably or by the same person for the same concentration.
External reviewer of this assessment plan
What they evaluateWhether the outcomes, measures, benchmarks, and improvement cycle constitute a sound assessment system, and whether the evidence would satisfy a peer review team under Core Component 3.E.
Qualifications soughtDemonstrated background in institutional effectiveness, outcomes assessment, or accreditation peer review. Service on an HLC or ATS review team, or a directorship in assessment or institutional research, is the relevant credential.
External capstone evaluator
What they evaluateIndividual student capstone work in a specific concentration, scored against the published rubric alongside faculty.
Qualifications soughtRecognized practitioner standing and subject-matter depth in the concentration being evaluated. Terminal degree preferred, but practitioner authority is the operative qualification.
Engagement record — no rows completed
Complete one row per confirmed engagement: name and credentials, affiliation, role and scope, date engaged, report on file. Record the reviewer under their own name and credentials; do not describe an internal or AI review as external, and do not describe any reviewer as an HLC representative unless HLC has assigned them.
Independence. An external reviewer should hold no current employment, contract, board seat, or compensated relationship with Arkansas Baptist College, and no supervisory or student relationship with anyone whose work they evaluate. Where a reviewer has a prior association with the College, disclose it in the row rather than omit the reviewer.
Recommended next step
This plan is submitted to the faculty of the McKissic School of Christian Studies for review, amendment, and vote. It carries no approval status until that vote is recorded.
Appendix E
Institutional outcome crosswalk
Evidence for HLC Core Components 3.A and 3.E, and for 1.A (mission alignment).
This crosswalk documents alignment between program outcomes and Arkansas Baptist College's four Institutional Learning Outcomes, and connects them to the goals of the College's strategic plan. The chain — ILO to strategic goal to PLO to course objective — provides the evidence peer reviewers look for when evaluating whether program outcomes serve the institutional mission.
Source documents: "Introduction of Assessment at ABC" (Office of Academic Affairs) and the ABC Strategic Plan 2020–2023, approved by the Board of Trustees May 21, 2020.
Part A — Institutional Learning Outcomes
ILO 1 · Communication. Students will demonstrate effective communication skills, including listening, speaking, and writing, in order to advance academically and professionally.
ILO 2 · Critical Reasoning. Students will demonstrate the ability to contribute actively and successfully to their community through analyzing, reflecting, reasoning, and forming conclusions and judgments on a variety of ideas, issues, and information.
ILO 3 · Culture and Global Awareness. Students will demonstrate the ability to recognize and respect the impact of differing cultures, ethnic groups, and values on society and the interdependence of people around the globe.
ILO 4 · Ethical Awareness. Students will demonstrate the ability to identify moral and ethical contexts and dilemmas; critically examine, assess, and change their own ethical values; and examine the implications of their own behavior for the lives of others.
Part B — Strategic plan goals governing this program
Currency of the strategic plan
The goals below are drawn from the ABC Strategic Plan 2020–2023, approved by the Board of Trustees May 21, 2020. That plan has passed the end of its stated term and remains operative pending its replacement. It is cited here as the governing institutional plan on that basis, not as a current-term document.
When the successor plan is adopted, Parts B and C are to be updated to the new goal structure within the same assessment cycle, and the change logged in the revision note.
Goal 1 · Spiritual Vitality. Promote a Christ-centered, Baptist worldview. Integrate faith and learning through service learning; strengthen spiritual formation activities; expand outreach and service.
Goal 2 · Educational Excellence. Demonstrate academic excellence in teaching and learning. Strengthen assessment processes; expand programs; increase graduate school and employment rates; maintain qualified faculty.
Goal 3 · Nurturing Environment. Facilitate a supportive environment sensitive to the needs of students. Improve student support services; develop student leadership skills and competencies.
Goal 6 · Institutional Relations. Enhance the reputation and relationships of the institution. Strengthen links between academic programs and Little Rock economic development; increase internship and employment opportunities.
Part C — Master crosswalk
Solid marker = primary alignment. Outlined marker = supporting alignment.
1Biblical Knowledge & Hermeneutical Competency
ILO 1ILO 2ILO 3ILO 4Goals 1, 2
Primary evidenceExegetical papers (REL 200, 201, 318); Biblical Literacy Exam; written interpretive arguments.
2Theological Articulation & Doctrinal Coherence
ILO 1ILO 2ILO 3ILO 4Goals 1, 2
Primary evidenceTheology Manuscript (REL 403); Doctrinal Position Papers (REL 202); oral defense.
3Historical Consciousness & Cultural Competency
ILO 1ILO 2ILO 3ILO 4Goals 1, 2, 6
Primary evidenceHistorical Analysis Portfolio (REL 215, 216, 317); Prophetic Witness Essay (REL 317).
4Spiritual Formation & Ministerial Character
ILO 1ILO 2ILO 3ILO 4Goals 1, 3
Primary evidenceSpiritual Formation Portfolio (REL 322); faculty advisor pastoral assessment; reflective journals.
5Ministry Practice & Leadership Competency
ILO 1ILO 2ILO 3ILO 4Goals 1, 2, 6
Primary evidenceCapstone performance assessments (REL 408, 415, 425; CED 320, 404, 410).
6Scholarly Research & Academic Communication
ILO 1ILO 2ILO 3ILO 4Goals 2, 6
Primary evidenceSenior research papers (CED 303, REL 318, 403); Research Proficiency Rubric; Turabian mastery exam.
7Professional Readiness & Vocational Integration
ILO 1ILO 2ILO 3ILO 4Goals 2, 3, 6
Primary evidenceCapstone Integration Project (all options); Ministry Design Portfolio.
Part D — Alignment summary
All four Institutional Learning Outcomes are addressed across the seven PLOs, and each ILO appears as a primary alignment in at least two of them. PLO 5 and PLO 7 achieve full four-ILO alignment and serve as the program's most integrative outcomes.
Communication is carried primarily by PLO 2, 5, and 6, through the Theology Manuscript, the exegetical paper with oral defense, and the concentration capstone presentation. Critical reasoning is the most pervasive ILO across the program, appearing as a primary alignment in PLO 1, 2, 6, and 7. Culture and global awareness is expressed distinctively through the program's centering of the African American Baptist tradition from REL 317 through REL 425, which goes beyond generic multicultural coverage to sustained cultural and historical formation rooted in the College's own heritage. Ethical awareness is carried by PLO 4 and 7, with supporting alignment in PLO 2 and 5, and is operationalized through REL 302 and the Spiritual Formation Rubric.
This alignment supports the College's board-approved mission to prepare students for a life of service grounded in academic scholarship, the liberal arts tradition, social responsibility, Christian development, and preparation for employment in a global community.