Assessment…. Misconceptions, Fears, and Realities

August 29, 2007, Nicole Duncan-Kinard and Kathy Harter led a discussion on assessment. What follows are their notes recording that discussion.

Misconceptions

• Assessment is equivalent to grading
• Formative and summative assessments are the same
• Assessment of outcomes infringes on faculty rights

Fears

• Assessment is dictated from beyond vs. faculty ownership of the course and the assessment;
• Assessment is viewed as teacher evaluation instead of a means to help the faculty member to progress;
• Assessment of outcomes will lead to a loss of individuality, faculty freedom of choice and responsibility;
• Assessment outcomes will effect tenure decisions.... Class will be perceived as too easy or too hard;
• Admitting that you “don’t know” something can be threatening to self-image/ego of a faculty member;
• Time for assessment of Student Learning Outcome's (SLO’s) is more time-consuming.....grading an essay-type exam is more extensive than T/F or multiple choice.
  

Realities

• Learning is part of a conversation with our students;
• Instructor’s attitude needs to be that the students understand the info vs. I delivered the info.... a SLO model vs. coverage model;
• The need to ensure consistency across sections regarding “protocols/course goals” [use a Teaching Goals Inventory] does not dictate an instructor’s style;
• Learning/classroom culture can be/should be collaborative vs. competitive;
• Tests can be used a punitive measure (low grade) or as a teaching moment...see what students don’t understand and address it;
• SLO’s can be sequential outcomes...as 101 moves into 102;
• For learning, students need to do the work...be engaged.....they summarize/evaluate the class (such as: muddiest area, one minute paper, what did you learn, what do you wish you learned, etc.)....and their input highlights the problematic areas/concepts for the instructor to address the next class;
• There can be student resistance to active engagement. (Afraid to speak out? Must do extra work such as re-writing a paper/lab report for grammatical errors, etc.) How do we overcome this? (Extra credit? Better grade? Designing a classroom culture that is welcoming; one of sharing)
  

Review of Recommendations and Prioritization of the Core Competencies

On August 27, 2007 , the May 2007 report of the AAMP Task Force on Assessment was reviewed. What follows are the notes from the discussion that ensued.

The decision by Dr. Curtis to hire an Assessment Coordinator as recommended in the Task Force report was applauded. Discussion ensued regarding the role of the task force in the hiring process of this person; a strong role was enthusiastically endorsed (committee presence and drafting of the interview questions and writing the job description). This person was visualized as a “go to” person to assist the faculty is a great addition but a collaborative person vs. a dictator is needed. Likewise, there was a strong feeling that the hire should be an internal individual (with release or extended time) to promote the buy-in of faculty....along with IR....and supplemented by a faculty committee.

Prioritization of the core competencies identified in the report was not recommended. Literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy are obviously critical but all the competencies were seen as valid and vital. Rather, it was suggested that after the assessment audit is completed, a matrix of all the competencies vs. courses (and competencies vs. programs) be developed following which all units would indicate where (and how?) the competencies were currently being addressed. Gaps in the matrix would indicate where changes are needed.

We need to acknowledge that the student of today is different from the student of 40 years ago. Students see us more as a supermarket where they get to pick and choose at their whim rather than as an institution of learning. If the reality is that 72% of our entering students need remediation, can we not design courses just for them that they must take along with their 3 developmental courses (vs. the “ludicrous” waiver list).... for instance a 3 credit orientation?

Orienting the culture of the College to assessment is needed but the College’s culture is so nebulous that it is difficult to know and steer. The College is redefining itself; going through a mid-life crisis. Therefore, the administration must establish a long term vision as regards assessment (leadership and commitment)....perhaps Achieving the Dream or the like...and link decisions, energy and dollars to this goal for all constituencies. As regards College-wide assessment we need to stress that assessment asks “What are our students learning?” and “How do we know?” We also need to stress that assessment is

1. SoTL...experimentation and evaluation...continuous inquiry;
2. Is a means to ensure uniformity across multiple course sections by being an objective measurement;
3. Moves us toward/demonstrates that we a Learning College;
4. Has best practices which are available to us...find them, use them! (such as a single, assigned advisor/counselor) ;
5. Is establishing a very simple feedback loop.....define a learning outcome, experiment with the means to accomplish it, assess the outcome and adapt the teaching based on the assessment;
6. Is not limited to course grades at the end of the semester. It can be done at the end of a lesson.....and the next class altered based on that assessment;
7. Is acknowledging that enhancing/changing what the instructor does in the classroom does not guarantee learning but that the way a course is structured most definitely can assist or hurt learning...ex. types of test, group projects, etc;
8. Is a shared responsibility....instructor and student and across the institution. The student is challenged to play a role/to be a learner....active engagement vs. a passive receiver;
9. Is not faculty evaluation. Faculty should not feel threatened by experimenting in the classroom; jobs are secure. Change is good...but for some faculty change/assessment outcomes could be met with fear...an ego issue?