QAR Samples - Conclusion
The QAR conclusion presents the overall findings and analysis from your self-study, summarizes what you see as the implications of the findings, and points to future actions.
As your parting word to reviewers and commissioners, the conclusion is an opportunity to instill confidence in your ability to interpret your findings and to lay out an action plan for improvement, inquiry, and/or innovation during the next accreditation period. If you articulate and prioritize specific goals for improvement and include a timeline for completion, this plan will also become a useful reference as you write future AAQEP Annual Reports.
Note that these samples represent options for approaching the QAR and are not intended as prescriptive models or templates; they also may be missing elements that AAQEP introduced since the time they were written. When writing your own report, you may find it useful to incorporate a variety of the strategies presented across these excerpts.
The University at Buffalo is a large public research university in western New York state. The conclusion opens with a high-level synthesis of the impact of completing the self-study on the program and key changes that resulted.
The provider then presents a plan for program changes, organized by standard, and identifies new areas of investigation and initiatives for the coming years. This framework supports ongoing connection with the standards and a natural bridge to future Annual Report writing.
Finally, the conclusion’s tone, organization, and detail all lend to confidence in the provider’s ability to engage in continuous improvement. (See also the University at Buffalo samples for Standard 1 and Appendix D.)
The University of Houston, a public research university, opens this section of the QAR with the program-selected research questions that focused their self-study work. Next, areas of program strength and growth are noted standard by standard, setting the provider up for future standards-aligned continuous improvement work and annual reporting.
The conclusion goes on to articulate a detailed action roadmap and timeline. The authors use tables (see pp. 340, 343) to organize their recommendations, noting for which program (initial and/or advanced) each applies, identifying the aligned aspect(s) of the standards, and listing actionable next steps and a proposed timeline to achieve the recommendation. This specificity demonstrates the program's learning from and ownership of self-study findings and inspires confidence in the program’s ability to move forward with continuous improvement opportunities.
Manhattan College is a Catholic, private liberal arts university in the Lasallian tradition located in New York City.
This conclusion begins with a reminder of the programs included in the scope of the accreditation and that earlier sections of the QAR present details at the end of each standard. The authors synthesize these continuous improvement plans in the conclusion, organized by semester. Also of note is the judicious selection of areas for focus in the conclusion and the provider’s demonstration of what they have learned from the self-study process in the identification of their next steps. (See also the Manhattan College sample for Standard 2.)
Truman State University is a small, rurally located public university in Missouri. This QAR closes in the same concise and focused way in which it began (see its introduction).
The authors identify four areas for improvement: assessment, growth with specific measures, program culture, and program growth based on the results of the self-study. This focus keeps both readers and the provider from feeling overwhelmed, provides the audience with confidence that the program knows where it wants to continue to improve, and sets up a clear road map for future work and annual reporting.