Moving Beyond the Process, Part 2 - Amazon S3...econo mics micro-economi c microco mp app for bus writing for bus pre-cal (bus) intro to bus bus statisti cs prin mgmt prin mktg internat

HLC Annual Meeting 2016 4/18/2016

Gloria Rogers – [email protected] 1

Moving Beyond the Process, Part 2:

Using Assessment to Demonstrate and Improve Student Learning

Gloria Rogers, PhDHLC Senior Scholar

Review: Selected Themes Extracted from Team Reports

1. Historical issue and insufficient progress

2. a. Absence of comprehensive & 2b. Systematic assessment process

3. Program learning goals were not clear

4. Linkage of course objectives to program outcomes or college level assessment

5. Reliance on survey data and course evaluation (grades) to document student learning



Review: Selected Themes Extracted from Team Reports

6. Limited/lack of faculty involvement

7. No or limited evidence/documentation of data utilization to improve student learning

8. Lack of assessment of co-curricular activities

9. Linkage of assessment to institutional planning, budgeting, funding priorities is missing

2.a. Absence of comprehensive assessment process

Process should reflect understanding of the principles of how students (of all ages) learn

• Learning occurs best when we build on what students already know

• Student learning is cumulative over time• What students learn in one course, they

use, practice, and develop in other courses.



Cumulative effect of learning over time

Stu

den

t A

bil

ity

Satisfactory summative performance

Unsatisfactory summative performance

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4

Enables programs to be

proactive.

Enables programs to be

reactive.

Implications for assessment

Student learning is cumulative over time

Focus of data collection in program/ institutional assessment is on the cumulative effect of student learning and influences:When to collect summative dataFrom whom to collect dataInterpretation of the results



Research results‐‐Students learn best when:

• Learning is an active process (importance of students active involvement in their own learning).

• Learners perform best when expectations for their learning is clear.

• Students learn best when they get feedback on their performance.

2. a. Absence of comprehensive process

• Comprehensive does not mean that every program is the same

• The whole is more than the sum of the parts



ASSESSMENT TERMS OTHER POSSIBLE TERMS FOR THE SAME CONCEPT

Student OutcomesGoals, Objectives,

Competencies, Standards, etc.

Performance IndicatorsCriteria, Competencies,

Outcomes, Standards, Rubrics, Specifications, Metrics, etc.

Assessment Evaluation

Evaluation Assessment

Using same language

Educational Practices and Strategies

Performance Indicators

StudentOutcomes

Evaluation Assessment

Conceptual Model for Program Continuous Improvement

Feedback (Closing the Loop)

Institutional Mission

Adapted from G.Rogers ©ABET, Inc

Program



3. Program learning goals were not clear

Importance of well defined outcomes:

Outcome: Students must demonstrate an understanding of professional and ethical responsibilities

• Performance indicators:

• Know the code of ethics for the discipline• Evaluate the ethical dimensions of a

problem in the discipline

Not all outcomes are the same

• Quantitative reasoning is not the same for programs in performing arts as it is for programs in computer science.

• Communication skills are not the same for students in Journalism as they are for students in Engineering.

• This does not mean that there are not minimum expectations for all students.

• However, superimposing gen ed performance indicators/rubrics on programs may not be appropriate or welcomed.



Performance Indicators

Exceeds standard Meets standardProgressing to

standardBelow standard

FocusMaintains exceptional focus on the topic

Maintains consistent focus on the topic

Provides inconsistent focus on the topic

Demonstrates little or no focus

Supporting Details

Provides ample supporting details

Provides adequate supporting details

Includes some details, but may include extraneous or loosely related material

Includes inconsistent or few details which may interfere with the meaning of the text

CoherenceOrganizational pattern is logical; conveys completeness & wholeness

Organizational pattern is logical; conveys completeness & wholeness with few lapses

Achieves little completeness & wholeness though organization attempted

Little evidence of organization or any sense of wholeness & completeness

TransitionsProvides transitions that eloquently serve to connect ideas

Provides transitions which serve to connect ideas

Provides transitions which are weak or inconsistent

Uses poor transitions or fails to provide transitions

VoiceAllows the reader to sense the person behind the words

Some sense of the person behind the words is evident

Some sense of the person behind the words is attempted

Little or no sense of the person behind the words is evident

Word Choice

Uses effective language; makes engaging, appropriate word choices for audience & purpose

Uses effective language & appropriate word choices for intended audience & purpose

Limited & predictable vocabulary, perhaps not appropriate for intended audience & purpose

Has a limited or inappropriate vocabulary for the intended audience & purpose

Sentence FluencySentences/phrases appropriately varied in length & structure

Sentences/phrases somewhat varied in length & structure

Shows limited variety in sentence length & structure

Has little or no variety in sentence length & structure

ConventionsConsistently follows the rules of Standard English for conventions

Generally follows the rules for Standard English for conventions

Generally does not follow the rules of Standard English for conventions

Does not follow the rules of Standard English for conventions

Writing Skills Rubric http://www.kent.k12.wa.us/KSD/KR/CP/WritingSkillsRubric.doc

Performance Indicators Exceeds standard Meets standardProgressing to

standardBelow

standard

Supporting details provided to enhance the quality of the report

Provides clarity of detail that enhances the overall quality of the report

Provides details thatsupport the premise of the report

Includes some details, but also includes extraneous or loosely related material

Includes inconsistent or few details which interfere with the meaning of the text

Logical organizational pattern is used to enhance understanding

Organizational pattern is logical and conveys completeness & wholeness

Organizational pattern is logical with only minor lapses in coherence

Evidence of organization but completeness & wholeness is lacking


Use of language is appropriate to audience





Application of the rules of standard English

Consistently follows the rules of Standard English for conventions

Basically follows the rules for Standard English for conventions with only minor lapses



Use of graphics that enhance audience understanding

Figures and charts are appropriate, clear and communicate well to the audience

Figures and charts are clear and, with a few exceptions, communicate clearly to the audience.

Figures and charts are used to communicate but lack consistency in format and style detracting from audience understanding.

Figures and charts are missing or havedeficiencies in formatting and style which detract from understanding.

Ability to write effectively



Performance Indicators:

Exceeds standardExcellent16‐20

Meets standard Good11‐15

Progressing to standard Fair 6‐10

Below standard Poor1‐5

Supporting details provided to enhance the quality of the report 1.75

Provides clarity of detail that enhances the overall quality of the report

Provides details thatsupport the premise of the report

Includes some details, but also includes extraneous or loosely related material

Includes inconsistent or few details which interfere with the meaning of the text

Logical organizational pattern is used to enhance understanding 1.20

Organizational pattern is logical and conveys completeness & wholeness

Organizational pattern is logical with only minor lapses in coherence

Evidence of organization but completeness & wholeness is lacking


Use of language is appropriate to audience 1.15





Application of the rules of standard English 1.15

Consistently follows the rules of Standard English for conventions

Basically follows the rules for Standard English for conventions with only minor lapses



Use of graphics that enhance audience understanding 1.75

Figures and charts are appropriate, clear and communicate well to the audience

Figures and charts are clear and, with a few exceptions, communicate clearly to the audience.

Figures and charts are used to communicate but lack consistency in format and style detracting from audience understanding.

Figures and charts are missing or havedeficiencies in formatting and style which detract from understanding.

Student total possible points = 100

Ability to write effectivelyAdapted from http://www.kent.k12.wa.us/KSD/KR/CP/WritingSkillsRubric.doc

4. Linkage of course objectives to program outcomes or college level assessment

• Demonstrates the alignment of the curriculum (curricular and co-curricular) to student outcomes/performance indicators

• Enhances decisions about where to collect data for formative and summative assessment

• Guides the evaluation process and decision-making about curriculum improvements

Importance of curriculum mapping



Expected Outcomes for the Common Professional ComponentCurriculum Map ‐

MarketingEcon207

Econ208

CS214

Eng200

Math1165

Busi201

Busi203

Busi211

Busi231

Busi241

Busi251

Busi252

Busi281

Busi371

Busi411

Writing Competencies

X X X X X

Critical Thinking Competencies

X X X X X X X X

Quantitative Reasoning Competencies

X X X X X X

Oral Communications Competencies

X X X X X

Technology and Information Literacy

X X X

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MAP

MACRO-

ECONOMICS

MICRO-ECONOMI

C

MICROCOMP APP

FOR BUS

WRITING FOR BUS

PRE-CAL (BUS)

INTRO TO BUS

BUS STATISTI

CS

PRIN MGMT

PRIN MKTG

INTERNATIONAL BUS

PRIN ACCTG I

PRIN ACCTG II

BUS LAW I

MTG FINANCE

I = Introduce; R = Reinforce;E = Emphasize

ECON

207ECON

208CS214

ENG

200MATH

1165BUSI

201BUSI

203BUSI

211BUSI

231BUSI

241BUSI

251BUSI

252BUSI

281BUSI

371WRITING COMPETENCIES

Identify a subject and formulate a thesis statement.

I R

Organize ideas to support a position.

I R R R

Write in a unified and coherent manner appropriate to the subject matter.

I R R R

Use appropriate sentence structure and vocabulary.

I R R R

Document references and citations according to an accepted style manual.

I R R

CRITICAL THINKING COMPETENCIESIdentify business problems and apply creative solutions.

I R R R R E

Identify and apply leadership techniques.

I R E

Translate concepts into current business environments.

I R R R R E

Analyze complex problems by identifying and evaluating the components of the problem.

I R R E E

QUANTITATIVE REASONING COMPETENCIES

Apply quantitative methods to solving real-world problems.

I R R R E

Perform necessary arithmetic computations to solve quantitative problems.

I R R R E

Evaluate information presented in tabular, numerical, and graphical form.

I R R R E

Recognize the reasonableness of

I = Introduce (Knowledge/Comprehension)R = Reinforce (Application/Analysis)E = Emphasize (Evaluation/Create)



I = Introduce; R = Reinforce;E = Emphasize

MA207

MA208

CS214

ENG

200MATH

365CS201

CS203

CS211

CS231

CS241

CS310

CS312

CS325

CS412

CS 424

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION


K (F) A A (S)


K A(F) A A A (S)


K A (F) A A A (S)


K A (F) A A A (S)

(S)Document references and citations according to an accepted style manual.

K (F) A A A (S)

PROBLEM SOLVINGIdentify computing problems and apply creative solutions.

K (F) A A A A E (S) E


K (F) A E (S) E

Translate concepts into current computing environments.

K (F) A A A A E (S) E


K (F) A A E E (S) E

QUANTITATIVE REASONING


K (F) A A A E E (S)

Perform necessary computations to solve quantitative problems.

K (F) A A A E E (S)


K (F) A A A E E (S)

Recognize the reasonableness of numeric answers.

K (F) A A A E E (S)

K= Knowledge/Comprehension; A= Application / Analysis;

E= Evaluate/Create

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION MAP

MACRO-

ECONOMICS

MICRO-ECONOMI

C

MICROCOMP APP

FOR BUS

WRITING FOR BUS

PRE-CAL (BUS)

INTRO TO BUS

BUS STATISTI

CS

PRIN MGMT

PRIN MKTG

INTERNATIONAL BUS

PRIN ACCTG I

PRIN ACCTG II

BUS LAW I

MTG FINANCE

ECON

207ECON

208CS214

ENG

200MATH

1165BUSI

201BUSI

203BUSI

211BUSI

231BUSI

241BUSI

251BUSI

252BUSI

281BUSI

371WRITING COMPETENCIES


I D


I D D D


I D D D


I D D D

Document references and citations according to an accepted style manual.

I D D

CRITICAL THINKING COMPETENCIESIdentify business problems and apply creative solutions.

I D D D D M


I D M

Translate concepts into current business environments.

I D D D D M


I D D M M

QUANTITATIVE REASONING COMPETENCIES


I D D D M

Perform necessary arithmetic computations to solve quantitative problems.

I D D D M


I D D D M

Recognize the reasonableness of

I= Introduced; D= Developed/Reinforced;

M= Mastery



Compile the Map: Written communication skills (all performance indicators)

FIRST YEAR SOPHOMORE JUNIOR SENIOR

FALL

Intro to Eng Statics Materials Design I

Chem I Physics II Diff Eq Biomech

Composition I Cacl III Bio Instrum I Biomaterials II

Calc I Comp Prog Eng Elective Phys Sys

Biology I Elective Gen Ed Tissue Eng

Gen Ed Seminar

SPRING

Intro Design Dynamics Thermo Design II

Chem II Org Chem Bio Instrum II Fluids

Physics I Calc IV Biomaterials I Eng Elective

Calc II Sys Modeling Biosystems Elective

Composition II Eng Elective Tech Writing Gen Ed

Gen Ed

5. Reliance on survey data and course evaluation (grades) to document student learning

Grades ≠ Assessment

Grades have limited use for program assessment as they do not have diagnostic value.

Grades can be a ‘flag,’ but do not point to specific strengths and weaknesses of what students know or can do.

A student’s grade in a course or on a project or exam generally represents the student’s performance on an set of aggregated knowledge/skills.



Assessment Methods

• Written surveys and questionnaires

• Exit and other interviews

• Standardized exams

• Locally developed assessments

• Archival records

• Focus groups• Portfolios• Simulations• Performance

appraisals• External

examiners• Oral Exams

Assessment Methods

Direct measures provide for the direct examination or observation of student knowledge or skills against measurable performance indicators.

Indirect measures of student learning that ascertain the opinion or self-report of the extent or value of learning experiences

Whether or not a particular assessment method is direct or indirect depends on the nature of what is

being measured and how the method is being used.



2.b. Absence of systematic assessment processes

Student OutcomesAY 13‐14

AY14‐15

AY15‐16

AY16‐17

AY 17‐18

AY18‐19

A recognition of ethical and professional responsibilities

DC E A DC E A

An understanding of how contemporary issues shape and are shaped by mathematics, science, & engineering

DC E A DC E

An ability to recognize the role of professionals in the global society

DC E A DC

An understanding of diverse cultural and humanistic traditions

DC E A DC E A

An ability to work effectively in teams DC E A DC E

An ability to communicate effectively in oral, written, graphical, and visual forms

DC E A DC

DC=Data Collection; E= Evaluate; A= Actions

2.b. Absence of systematic assessment processes

• Difference between data and information



Outcome: Work effectively in teamsUnsatisfactory

1Developing

2Satisfactory

3Exemplary

4

Research &

Gather

Information

Does not collect any information

that relates to the topic.

Collects some information relate

to the topic but incomplete.

Collects basic information

related the topic.

Collects a great deal of

information which goes beyond the

basics.

Fulfill Team

Role's Duties

Does not perform any duties of

assigned team role.

Inconsistently performs duties

that are assigned

Performs duties that are assigned

Performs all duties assigned

and actively assists others.

Share in work

of team

Always relies on others to do the

work.

Rarely does the assigned work--

often needs reminding.

Usually does the assigned work--

rarely needs reminding.

Always does the assigned work

without having to be reminded.

Listen to

Other

Teammates

Is always talking--never allows

anyone else to speak.

Usually doing most of the

talking--rarely allows others to

speak.

Listens most of the time

Consistently listens and responds to

others appropriately.

Percent of students with average score of 3.0 or above

75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Work effectively in teams (N=87)

Target



Work effectively in Teams

Threshold84%

64% 60%

90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ResearchInformation

Fulfill Roles Share in work Listening

Percent students with satisfactory or exemplary performance N=87

• “You don’t have to be bad to get better.”

From data to improvement



6. Limited/lack of faculty involvement

Everyone’s job is no one’s job

Those who can do something about the findings should be involved in the evaluation and determination of actions to be taken.

Ownership of results

Compile the Map: Written communication skills (all performance indicators)

FIRST YEAR SOPHOMORE JUNIOR SENIOR

FALL

Intro to Eng Statics Materials Design I

Chem I Physics II Diff Eq Biomech

Composition I Cacl III Bio Instrum I Biomaterials II

Calc I Comp Prog Eng Elective Phys Sys

Biology I Elective Gen Ed Tissue Eng

Gen Ed Seminar

SPRING

Intro Design Dynamics Thermo Design II

Chem II Org Chem Bio Instrum II Fluids

Physics I Calc IV Biomaterials I Eng Elective

Calc II Sys Modeling Biosystems Elective

Composition II Eng Elective Tech Writing Gen Ed

Gen Ed



Engaging faculty

Changing the Conversations• Role of faculty

• Course assessment: Content Expert and Mediator of Learning

• Program/Institutional Assessment: Member of a Learning Community

• Move faculty • From “my” course • To “our” curriculum

I We

My Our

Me Us

Mine Ours

“You can tell the quality of an institution by the quality of its conversations!” S.F.Hulbert

Changing the conversations – shared knowledge and collective responsibility

• Faculty: • From what I DO • To engaging in conversations with colleagues

about what students learn and how to improve the learning environment

• Students: • From listing courses that they have taken • To describing the knowledge/skills that they

have achieved



Evaluation

Assessment is not a controlled experiment

Evaluation = data + wisdom• Data are necessary but not sufficient

This is a data-informed, not data-driven process• Data tell you WHAT• Wisdom tells you WHY

• Why are the students not achieving the outcomes? Why is this student group different?

Improvements should be linked to principles of student learning• Focus primarily on student learning

6. No or limited evidence/documentation of data utilization to improve student learning

How do you tell your story?



Performance IndicatorsEducational Strategies

Method(s) of Assessment

Where summative data are collected

Where formative data are collected

Length of assessment cycle (yrs)

Yr/Sem of summative

data collection

Threshold for Performance

1. Knows code of ethics for the discipline

2001, 2060, 3001

Locally developed exam

3001 2001(yr 1 of cycle), 2060(yr2 of cycle)

3 years 2012, 2015 80%

Senior Surveys On‐line survey

2.Ability to evaluate the ethical dimensions of a problem in the discipline

3001, 4092

Case study review/rubric

40923001 (yr. 2) 3 years 2012, 2015 70%

Senior Surveys On‐line survey

Student Outcome: Understanding of professional and ethical responsibility

Assessment Results Summary (direct measures) 2012: Summative data were collected in 3001. For the summative assessment (end of program), the decision was made to focus on the direct assessment of faculty developed examination as the primary assessment data for both indicators. The assessment of indicator #1 was done in course 3001 after a review of material covered earlier in the program. Because the indicator is at the “knowledge” level, a multiple choice/true‐false exam was give to see how well the student had learned the material. For indicator #2, a case study was chosen from http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethicscasestudies.htm and was used in the 4092 class. The scoring rubrics were completed by the faculty. The percent of the students that demonstrated each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1 ‐ 66%; Indicator #2 ‐ 58%.Evaluation and Actions 2013: The faculty who integrated ethics into their courses met in the fall of 2007 and 2008 to review the formative data and make recommendations for changes during those academic years The assessment results were evaluated by the faculty at a retreat held in August of 2010. Indicator #1: Based on the analysis of the results, the faculty who were introducing and/or reinforcing the code of ethics in their courses were asked to reinforce the importance of knowing the code of ethics for the discipline. They were also encouraged to review the scores to see if there were common items missed and to reiterate the areas where students’ performance was weak. Indicator #2: Faculty were asked to provide the scoring rubrics to students with the case study so they could see how they would be evaluated. A sub‐committee of the department Curriculum Committee was assigned to meet and review the performance indicators to be sure that they were appropriate. The Advisory Committee was also asked to provide feedback. It was recommended not to make any changes at this time. Faculty integrating ethics agreed to review their assignments to be sure that students were given adequate opportunities to learn the codes in the context of the discipline and to make students performance on the exam was an adequate portion of the overall grade for the unit. Second‐Cycle Results Summary (direct measures) 2015: The second cycle summative data were again taken in the 3001 for indicator #1 and 4092 for indicator #2. Based on actions taken as a result of the 2006 evaluation process, the following improvements were seen in 2008: Indicator #1 – +10% (74%); Indicator #2 ‐+12% (70%).Evaluation and Actions 2016: The faculty who integrated ethics into their courses met in the fall of 2010 and 2011 to review the formative data and make recommendations for changes during those academic years. During the August 2013 department retreat, the faculty agreed that adequate progress had been made on both of the indicators and no further action would be taken at this time. However, at the end of the 2013 assessment cycle for ethics if the trend continues upward the committee will review whether or not the thresholds should be raised in an effort to continually improve student performance.

Assessment Results Summary (direct measures) 2012: Summative data were collected in 3001. For the summative assessment (end of program), the decision was made to focus on the direct assessment of faculty developed examination as the primary assessment data for indicator #1. The assessment of indicator #1 was in course 3001 after a review of material covered earlier in the program. Because the indicator is at the “knowledge” level, a multiple choice/true‐false exam was give to see how well the student had learned the material. For indicator #2, a case study was chosen from http://ethics.tamu.edu/ethicscasestudies.htm and was used in the 4092 class. The scoring rubric was completed by the faculty. The percent of the students that demonstrated each criterion were as follows: Indicator #1 ‐ 66%; indicator #2 ‐ 58%.



Evaluation and Actions 2013: The faculty who integrated ethics into their courses met in the fall of 2010 and 2011 to review the formative data and make recommendations for changes during those academic years. The assessment results were evaluated by the faculty at a retreat held in August of 2013. Indicator #1: Based on the analysis of the results, the faculty who were introducing and/or reinforcing the code of ethics in their courses were asked to reinforce to students the importance of knowing the code of ethics for the discipline. They were also encouraged to review the scores to see if there were common items missed and to reiterate the areas where students’ performance was weak. Indicator #2: Faculty were asked to provide the scoring rubrics to students with the case study so they could see how they would be evaluated. A sub‐committee of the department Curriculum Committee was assigned to meet and review the performance indicators to be sure that they were appropriate. The Advisory Committee was also asked to provide feedback. It was recommended not to make any changes at this time. Faculty integrating ethics agreed to review their assignments to be sure that students were given adequate opportunities to learn the codes in the context of the discipline and to make students’ performance on the exam an adequate portion of the overall grade for the unit.

The right people having the right conversations.


Proactive




Relevance


Students learn best when they know what is expected of them.




Students learning is cumulative.


Students learn best when they get feedback on their

performance.



60%60%

66%58%

76%70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Knowledge of code of ethics Evaluate ethical dimensions2009 2012 2015

Threshold = 80%

Trend Data – Understanding of professional and ethical understanding

Threshold = 70%

Percent of students who scored 80% or better on MC/TF exam

Percent of students who scored Satisfactory or Exemplary on rubric

N=67 N=74 N=76

These data can be used for reporting purposes in three areas:

• Program review: Did the changes/recommendations make any difference? The answer to this question feeds back to improve the program.

• Institution: Is the program being effective in documenting student learning and improving learning over time?

• Accrediting agency: What is the evidence of student learning? Is there a process in place that enables the program to determine the level of student learning and the ability to continuously improve their educational processes?

Trend data



Setting “targets” for student performance

• Best practice for continuous improvement processes suggests continual improvement regardless of the level of performance

• View “targets” as “thresholds” for performance• In a “continuous improvement” cycle, if a desired

performance level has been met, does that mean we do nothing?

• Are we willing to say that it is okay if 25% of our students DON’T meet our chosen “target?”

X

When setting a threshold for a performance indicator, here is what you should consider:

• Cognitive level: (e.g., is expectation at the knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation level): One would anticipate that the higher the cognitive level, the higher degree of difficulty

• Complexity of application: The more complex the application of the skill, the more difficulty (e.g., designing a mousetrap car in a 100‐level course v. a senior design project)

Setting “thresholds”



When setting a threshold for a performance indicator, here is what you should consider:

• Curriculum support: The more courses that support student performance for each indicator, the more likely it is that students will achieve the anticipated performance.

• Student learning is cumulative over time. As students progress through the curriculum the application of skills are likely to be with more complex problems.

• This means that there might be different “thresholds" for each of the performance indicators that make up any one outcome.

Setting “thresholds”

8. Lack of assessment of co‐curricular activities

• Every co-curricular offering should have a purpose related to student development and be mapped to the outcomes for Student Affairs

• How do your co-curricular strategies enable students to achieve the desired outcomes

• Clubs and organizations• Athletics• Service learning• Other



Principles of Co‐Curricular Learning(http://studentaffairs.iupui.edu/about/assessment/learning‐outcomes.shtml)

2826

19

5

16 15 1619

0

5

10

15

20

25

30



How is the assessment of co‐curricular outcomes similar to and different from academic assessment?

Academic Assessment Co‐curricular Assessment

Articulation of anticipated learning outcomes: Course/Program/Institution

Articulation of anticipated learning outcomes: Activity/Division/Student Affairs

Specific learning outcomes withexpected levels of achievement

Learning outcomes that are moregeneral with anticipation that not all students will participate/learn at the same level

Students have required attendanceCo-curricular activities are voluntary – not all students participate

Faculty assign specific tasks for the purpose of direct assessment

Participation in assessment tasks are usually voluntary

Direct assessment based on observation of student performance

Indirect assessment based on student self-report



• What direct methods can be used for co‐curricular

activities?

• It is not always possible to have direct measures

of student learning

• Common use of indirect measures

• End of activity surveys

• Pre‐post self‐report

• Attendance

• Observation/anecdotal

• Other?

Implications for Assessment

10. Linkage of assessment to institutional planning, budgeting, funding priorities is

missing

5.C. The institution engages in systematic and integrated planning.

2. The institution links its processes for assessment of student learning, evaluation of operations, planning, and budgeting.

Clarification please!!!



• Be careful about focus on “culture” of assessment

• Best practices in developing assessment processes will evolve a culture of the use of data to inform decision‐making

• Two type of assessment plans

• Show

• Go

• It is a human process that takes time, if you build a strong foundation students will be the benefactors

Closing comments

Documents

Moving Beyond the Process, Part 2 - Amazon S3...econo mics micro-economi c microco mp app for bus writing for bus pre-cal (bus) intro to bus bus statisti cs prin mgmt prin mktg internat