Assessment at small colleges and universities: Student learning as the anchor in the seas of change

1
Assessment at small colleges and universities
Student learning as the anchor in the seas of
change

• Carleen Vande Zande
• Sheryl Ayala
• Marian College

2
Discussion Overview

• 1. How do current campus-wide initiatives support
  student learning?
• 2. How is a shared vision for student learning
  created and maintained at the campus level?
• 3. What are the supports and barriers to a shared
  commitment of student learning?
• 4. Is there a mechanism to coordinate and
  evaluate assessment on your campus?

3
Sea of changenew perspectives

• Traditional
• Fragmented approach
• Periodic
• Episodic assessments
• More summative
• Limited formats
• Externally motivated
• Course quality based

• Emerging
• Coherent approach
• Continuous
• Linked to standards
• More formative
• Multiple formats
• Internally motivated
• Student performance based

4
Problems and Pitfalls

• Culture of institution not focused on student
  learning.
• Changes are not linked to student performance.
• Changes not linked to institutional planning or
  budget cycle.

• Results of assessment not linked to program
  review.
• Change made in isolation.
• Faculty not recognized for assessment efforts.

5
Barriers to effective assessment

• Assessments dont link to stated outcomes
• Goals and outcomes are not clearly stated.
• Lack of articulation with state/professional
  standards.
• Expectations are not shared
• Outcomes not expressed in terms of what students
  can do.

6
Barriers

• Lack of multiple measures
• Assessments often too specific and do not cut
  across programs
• Lack of continuity of assessments over students
  programs
• Unclear assessment benchmarks
• Assessments are limited in scope and format
• Reliability challenges
• Validity-logical and reasonable inferences about
  learning

7
Barriers

• Lack of supporting structures/procedures
• Unclear methods of using, storing, reporting
  student assessment results
• Feedback loop not defined for interpretation or
  sharing of results
• No review of assessment system itself
• Change not based or linked to results

8
Supports Collaboration in efforts to focus on
student learning

• Build a shared language about assessment
• Collaboration of my campus and HLC to look at
  assessment characteristics across campus to
  answer some of these questions

9
What is the anchor?

• HLC Statement The program to assess student
  learning should emerge from and be sustained by a
  faculty and administrative commitment to
  excellent teaching and effective learning

10
How do we drop the anchor?

• provide explicit and public statements regarding
  the institutions expectations for student
  learning
• use the information gained from the systematic
  collection and examination of assessment data
  both to document and improve student learning

11
What criteria do we use?

• Shared understandings, guiding principles
• A rating system based on varying levels of
  implementation and adherence to qualities

12
Characteristics of a coordinated Assessment System

• Structured
• Systematic
• Continuous

• Shared
• Coherent
• Explicit

13
Structured

• Clear decision points are identified
• Criteria are well defined
• Clear links to unit framework are evident

14
Systematic

• Information gained from the systematic collection
  and examination of assessment data is recorded,
  reported and used for program improvement.
• Periodic review of system itself
• Active Assessment Committee as support

15
Continuous

• Assessment system has elements that cut across
  programs
• Guides the assessment of all students as they
  progress through a program
• Occur at key milestones in program
• Uses multiple measures over time

16
Shared

• The plan is widely known, accepted and routinely
  updated
• The plan is related to other planning and
  budgeting processes-it is institutionalized
• Documented changes based on data

17
Coherent

• The assessment program is linked to the
  commitment of excellent teaching, effective
  learning and supports national and state
  standards
• Clearly stated outcomes for all programs

18
Coherent

• Feedback loop for information flow is clarified,
  linked to student learning
• Assessment results are linked to program review
  process
• Need for change is linked to actual data

19
Explicit

• The assessment program provides explicit and
  public statements regarding the institutions
  expectations for student learning
• Explicit objectives derived from goals that are
  publicly stated and linked to measures

20
Explicit

• Shows clear evidence of student learning
• Assessment information is available and
  distributed
• Results are shared

21
Looking at our assessment system campus wide

• Measuring our progress using the HLC levels of
  implementation

22
What criteria do we use?

• A system based on varying levels of
  implementation
• Explicit roles and responsibilities across campus

23
Rationale

• to measure their progress toward their goals for
  a successful assessment
• program at the institutional level by defining
  roles and responsibilities

24
Rationale

• to identify the structural, procedural, and
  policy changes their institution needs in order
  for the institutional assessment program to
  become fully
• realized

25
Rationale

• to carry out the agreed upon changes that will
  serve to maintain existent
• positive attributes of the assessment program

26
Rationale

• to determine how far they have come toward
  carrying on effective
• assessment programs at the academic program
  level

27
Rationale

• to confirm or challenge the impression held by
  the institutions constituents about the quality
  of their assessment program at the programmatic
  level (general education, the major, and graduate
  and professional degree programs)

28
Uses

• to include in their Self-Study Reports, a
  self-evaluation of both the assessment program
  for the institution as a whole and the assessment
  programs

29
A Campus Perspective Lessons learned at Marian
College

• Student learning as the anchor

30
Uses at Marian College

• 1. One way, is to use the plan as the basis for
  discussion across programs to raise awareness and
  to identify issues about assessment.
• 2. A second way to use the document is to make it
  a kind of template to construct a similar matrix
  for your own institution.

31
Use at Marian College

• 3. A third way you might use the document when
  you return to your campus would be to create a
  two-part survey of your assessment program

32
Use at Marian College

• 4. The plan can be used as a basis for strategic
  planning in assessment
• 5. The plan can effectively be used as a basis
  for budgeting framework for identifying support
  for assessment
• 6. The plan can be a planning guide for
  professional development opportunities for
  faculty

33
Use at Marian College

• 7. The assessment characteristics of the plan can
  be the basis for the campus program approval or
  program review process.
• 8. The components of the plan can be used as a
  reporting framework across campus.
• 9. Linking the assessment and General Education
  committees to best support a coherent vision of
  student learning.

34
Discussion

• Problems and Pitfalls in assessment
• Supports
• Characteristics
• Plan levels

35
Characteristics

• Structured
• Systematic
• Continuous

• Shared
• Coherent
• Explicit