Context of Assessment
Assessment of student learning is the "systematic collection of information about student learning, using the time, knowledge, expertise, and resources available, in order to inform decisions about how to improve learning" (Walvoord, 2004). The unit of analysis may be at the individual student level, the program level or the institutional level. Classroom assessment involves assessment of student work by the course instructor (i.e., the instructor of the senior capstone course evaluates students' final projects using a rubric and uses the information to improve the course next semester.) Program assessment involves the assessment of students as a group in order to determine what and how an educational program is contributing to the learning and development of its students (i.e., the faculty teaching the senior capstone report annually to the department or a faculty committee, outlining the strengths and weaknesses of the students' work in relation to the departmental learning goals). Institutional assessment involves the assessment of campus-wide goals for student learning and is typically conducted by institutional research (i.e. data from NSSE or the Senior Survey are analyzed to assess achievement of university-wide goals such as engagement in the community). This site offers resources for program assessment, where the unit of analysis will be at the program level.
What are SACS requirements for assessment?
According to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the University must comply with the following requirements in order to be reaccredited:
SACS Core Requirement 2.5 : The institution engages in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and evaluation processes that (1) incorporate a systematic review of institutional mission, goals, and outcomes; (2) result in continuing improvement in institutional quality; and (3) demonstrate the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission.
SACS Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 : The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in each of the following areas:
3.3.1.1 educational programs, to include student learning outcomes
3.3.1.2 administrative support services
3.3.1.3 educational support services
3.3.1.4 research with its educational mission, if appropriate
3.3.1.5 community/public service within its educational mission, if appropriate
SACS Comprehensive Standard 3.5.1: The institution identifies college-level general education competencies and the extent to which graduates have attained them.
Why do we assess?
Why should faculty do all this work to assess student learning other than to get by with SACS accreditation? Good teaching requires more than simple transmission of information. It requires conscious self-reflection. Faculty who are successful in their teaching continually strive to become more reflective in their practice to improve. Astin (1993a) compares assessment to a dancer's mirror, which enhances and makes more systematic the dancer's ability to critique and correct her own performance. Careful attention to students' learning by departments and programs can also help create a climate of caring and engagement that supports students' own commitment to their learning (Walvoord, 2004).
Why can't we use grades?
A letter grade by itself does not provide enough information on student strengths and weaknesses. While a letter grade of a B indicates that a student has learned a great deal about a subject, it does not provide information about which aspects need improvement. For example, a grade of a B on an English paper might reflect adequate content, poor mechanics, and average synthesis, or it might reflect poor content, adequate mechanics, and average synthesis. In addition, grading standards within departments or programs may also be vague and inconsistent and do not correspond to department learning goals.
Grades have shortcomings when being used for the purposes of making informed improvements about a program if they are not clearly linked to major learning goals and are not clearly delineated through the use of test blueprints or rubrics (Walvoord & Anderson, 1998). However, if the performance and criteria are made explicit through the use of a rubric, and the feedback loop includes the department, then the grading process is an excellent basis for direct assessment (Walvoord, 2004). One of the most effective yet least time-consuming modes of assessment is to use the classroom assignment that is being conducted for grading processes and feed back the information to the department.
Can student surveys be used in assessment of academic programs?
Surveys capture information about students' perceptions about their learning experiences and attitudes towards the learning process. They do not provide direct information about what students are able to represent, produce or demonstrate as a result of the program. However, surveys could be used to corroborate data gathered through more direct means of assessment. The differences between direct and indirect measures of student learning have taken on new importance as accrediting agencies such as SACS are requiring the use of direct measures to be the main source of information. If you choose student surveys to complement a direct measure of assessment, you should avoid student satisfaction items; instead ask questions about students' perceptions of how well the program learning goals were met.
How will assessment data be used?
Assessment results should be used to monitor program activities, identify weaknesses in student learning, and guide decision-making. Program assessment should not be about individual students, faculty, or staff. It should not be a personnel review. Assessment is a process used to provide feedback for continuous, incremental improvement of academic programs. Assessment data should be aggregated across instructors and courses since they are to be used to assess an entire program, and identifying information for students and faculty members should be removed.