Professional Development Day - October 8, 2007
Facilitator: Dawn Sinnott
Recorder: Greg Bovasso
The group, which was composed mostly of art department faculty was not familiar with the assessment plan, and so the facilitator described the plan. The group seemed to agree that assessment of student learning was critical to academic success at various organizational levels (e.g., courses, curricula, etc.).
The group discussed the various methods of teaching and assessment depicted in the film shown prior to the session. The role of assessment in designating remediation for students was particularly notable, and the importance of assessment in serving a ‘gatekeeping” function was noted as having benefits, as well as costs, such as increased attrition. The group discussed the importance of creating a sense of social support in academic programs to reduce attrition. Active learning approaches, such as those depicted in the film and used by discussants in their classes were also seen as critical to student success. In addition, the use of art critiques was discussed as a method of teaching that employs assessment as part of the learning process in the classroom. Such techniques prevent the kind of non-participation and attrition by students shown in the film.
The group discussed assessment as a collaborative process between students and faculty, as well as among faculty, such as when all art department faculty evaluate the portfolio of a single student majoring in art. The group noted that different performance criteria were employed in these assessments, though the goals and process of assessment were uniform. The content of assessment was determined by the skills needed for successful transfer, as defined by the transfer institution. Classroom projects that build these competencies through continuous formative assessments (e.g., ‘critiques’), and portfolio evaluations assess these competencies. Students are given continuous feedback in classes and in mid semester reviews to assure that they meet the program objectives evaluated in portfolio reviews. Students can also compare their work with that of other students in this process.
Some of the competencies required to enter classes include skills learned in English classes given the importance of writing in art history classes and verbal skills in studio class critiques. Faculty described accommodations they make in classroom practices to remediate deficient skills in students. The faculty collaborate with the Architecture department in coordinating competencies and their assessments.
The group agreed that the CCP assessment system resulted in students with a wide variety of basic skills being enrolled in their classes, and that a wide variety of learning outcomes resulted from this assessment process. Much remediation takes place in college-level courses.
The most notable kind of formative assessment at CCP was the designation of students at remedial levels based on testing of their reading, writing and match skills. The completion of the first academic year was also viewed as a kind of formative assessment. Course-level evaluations also were viewed as providing clear feedback to students based on explicit objectives. However, assessment accommodates different student goals by applying a uniform assessment process to all students, but different standards based on students’ differing goals.
The facilitator described the assessment model proposed by the assessment task force as one requiring a feedback loop to improve teaching processes based on assessment. She also described the five competencies at the course level which would be assessed across the curriculum in the model proposed by the assessment task force. This approach was differentiated from the ‘dimensions’ model proposed for the General Education curriculum, and tied to measurable competencies rather than general values. The competency of ‘information literacy’ was clarified, and seen as needing expansion beyond information technology. All courses were seen as developing the five competencies to different degrees but more communication across departments on these competencies was seen as being needed, particularly regarding the implementation of their assessment. Departments may differ widely on their definition of each competency and its assessment to the degree that these competencies would not be truly universal. All agreed that such competencies should not be dictated to a department because this would obstruct the teaching of competencies that a department regards as most valuable, and lead to “teaching to the test” to satisfy organizational requirements at the expense of education. All agreed that such assessments of common competencies cannot be used to evaluate departments or curricula, only individual students. Some believed that exit criteria for evaluating student learning outcomes differ by student based on individual academic goals (e.g., major vs. non-majors), and cannot be generalized across curricula, or even within curricula. A department may have common goals and assessments, but apply different standards of evaluation depending on students’ various academic goals.
The advising process was seen as critical to ensuring that students were directed to meet their personal academic goals rather than institutional goals (e.g., degree requirements) which may not match their goals. The example of the student depicted in the film who repeatedly failed math was discussed as an example of a failed advising process. The importance of advising students to meet true educational goals (e.g., understanding math) rather than just credentialing goals (passing remedial math) was discussed. The system of portfolio evaluation was also seen as a method of providing students with feedback on how well they meet educational goals.
