SayPro Feedback Management Template: SayPro Assessment Plan for Introduction to Environmental Science (ENV 101)

---

Course Title:

Introduction to Environmental Science

Course Code:

ENV 101

Date of Feedback Received:

[Insert Date]

QCTO Representative:

[Insert Name of QCTO Representative]

Feedback Summary:

[QCTO provided feedback on the assessment plan for ENV 101. Feedback focused on alignment with course learning outcomes (CLOs), assessment criteria, and clarity on grading and feedback timelines. There was also a suggestion for more detailed alignment between assessment types and specific learning outcomes.]

---

SayPro Feedback Items and Actions:

Feedback Item	Feedback Description	Action Required	Person Responsible	Deadline for Revision	Status
1. Assessment Type Alignment	QCTO recommended a clearer alignment between assessment types (Midterm Exam, Research Paper, etc.) and specific course learning outcomes.	Review and ensure that each assessment is directly linked to specific CLOs, with clear emphasis on what aspect of each CLO is being assessed in each assessment type.	[Name]	[Insert Deadline]	[Pending/In Progress]
2. Research Paper Focus	Feedback suggested that the research paper might benefit from a more explicit emphasis on the integration of scientific methods and ethical considerations.	Revise the assessment instructions for the research paper to clearly highlight the requirement to integrate scientific methods and ethical considerations within the paper.	[Name]	[Insert Deadline]	[Pending/In Progress]
3. Participation Grading	QCTO expressed a desire for more concrete criteria for participation grading. They recommended providing specific examples of what constitutes “quality input” in discussions and online forums.	Update participation grading criteria to include examples of what constitutes “quality input” and specify the expectations for in-class and online discussions.	[Name]	[Insert Deadline]	[Pending/In Progress]
4. Final Exam Clarification	QCTO suggested clarifying the scope of the final exam, particularly regarding the application of environmental policies in the assessment.	Revise the final exam description to explicitly state the focus on applying environmental policies, and provide more details on how students should integrate these policies into their exam responses.	[Name]	[Insert Deadline]	[Pending/In Progress]
5. Grading Criteria Transparency	Feedback highlighted the need for more transparency in grading, especially for the midterm exam and final exam.	Add a detailed grading rubric for the midterm and final exams to clarify how marks are allocated for different types of responses and criteria.	[Name]	[Insert Deadline]	[Pending/In Progress]
6. Feedback Timeline	QCTO requested more specific timelines for feedback on certain assessments, such as the group project and participation.	Provide a more detailed timeline for feedback on group projects and participation grades, ensuring clarity on the timing of feedback for each type of assessment.	[Name]	[Insert Deadline]	[Pending/In Progress]

---

SayPro Clarifications or Further Actions Needed:

• Participation Grading Criteria: Seek clarification on whether participation should also include self-reflection or peer feedback to assess collaboration more holistically.
• Research Paper Ethical Focus: Clarify the specific expectations for integrating ethical considerations into the research paper (e.g., how to integrate sustainability ethics or ethical approaches to environmental issues).

---

SayPro Follow-Up Actions:

Follow-Up Action	Date for Follow-Up	Person Responsible	Status
Contact QCTO for clarification on “quality input” for participation.	[Insert Date]	[Name]	[Pending/In Progress]
Follow up with QCTO regarding the final exam policy integration.	[Insert Date]	[Name]	[Pending/In Progress]
Check if feedback timeline revisions meet QCTO expectations.	[Insert Date]	[Name]	[Pending/In Progress]

---

SayPro Resubmission Details:

• Date of Resubmission: [Insert Date]
• Cover Letter/Revision Summary: [Briefly outline the revisions made in response to feedback (e.g., clarified grading rubrics, enhanced participation criteria).]
• Person Submitting: [Insert Name]

---

QCTO Final Feedback:

[Summarize the final approval or feedback after revisions were submitted. Include any additional comments or actions required for final approval.]

---

Status of Course Approval:

[Insert current status of course approval—e.g., “Pending Final Review,” “Approved,” “Awaiting Further Clarification from QCTO,” etc.]

---

Instructor’s Signature:

[Instructor’s full name and signature]

Date:

[Insert Date]