You are here
Assessment Myths
Find out the facts behind common assessment myths
Myth 1
Assessment is just the latest fad in higher education
The Reality
Assessment has been
- Common practice in higher education for over thirty years
- The emphasis of accreditors for at least twenty-five years
- A formal expectation of all regional accreditors since 2004
Myth 2
Assessment is just about collecting evidence in case the Higher Learning Commission wants to see it some time
The Reality
- Collecting evidence isn’t enough
- Assessment needs systems and strategies that produce actionable evidence
- Assessment is Closer to standardized and coordinated individual practice and further from bureaucracy?
Myth 3
Assessment strategies need to be objective and uniform
The Reality
- Most judgments about student performance are subjective
- What makes strategies “valid” is the consistent application of criteria
- Consistency builds over time, with practice
Myth 4
Grades ought to be a good enough indicator of student performance; additional assessment isn’t really necessary
The Reality
- Desired outcomes (course, program, and institutional) may not be measured by the grading process
- An assignment or course may support multiple learning outcomes
- A course grade often measures much more than intended outcomes
A Digression on Outcomes
- Outcomes are the intended or desired results of student work
- Outcomes describe what a students can do with what he/she knows
- Outcomes are performance-based
- Outcomes define the essential abilities of a graduate or course completer – what a student carries with him/herself to the next level
- Many variables affect grades participation, attendance, group work with student not in the program, and so on
- Individual assignments have objectives that may only tangentially connect with outcomes while the rest of the course does not
- Outcomes may be developed and measured only partially in some courses, one outcome often is measured through multiple courses
Myth 5
Assessment tools must be validated before they are used
The Reality
- Externally validated tools ignore nuanced differences between and among disciplines
- “Home-grown” tools can reflect institutional and departmental values and can be validated over time
- Value in the process is validation if used continuously and revised over time
Myth 6
There is no valid way to assess abstract qualities like critical thinking
The Reality
- Commercial instruments may be useful if they align with institutional outcomes or values
- VALUE rubrics might be a starting point
- Institutions can develop rubrics that cross disciplines but respect disciplinary differences as well by aiming at core elements, the “deep learning” that students carry with them
- Graduate Candidacy and Defense exam rubrics work very well
Myth 7
Once you’ve defined outcomes and mapped them through the curriculum, you can be relatively sure that students will develop them
The Reality
- Taking a course doesn’t guarantee learning
- Students must demonstrate the achievement of the learning outcome
- Assessing formative learning is as important as assessing summative learning
Myth 8
Programs only need to assess a final test or capstone course
The Reality
- “High stakes” for both the student and the institution
- Challenging to measure all outcomes at once
- No opportunity for mid-course corrections
Myth 9
Assessment is just another sneaky way of evaluating faculty
The Reality
- Assessment results should not be used to evaluate individual faculty
- Participating in the assessment process can be a job expectation and therefore be evaluated, but the results of an assessment should not
Myth 10
Assessment is unnecessary busy work
The Reality
- Assessment emphasizes improving student learning and not completing reports
- Assessment should connect to existing program processes and structures
- The best approach organic and local
Myth 11
Technology makes it all easier; all we need for good assessment is a good data management system
The Reality
- Different disciplines / different strategies
- Technology should not drive assessment and reporting methodologies
- Technology cannot make judgments
- Disciplinary learning experts still need to analyze the data and plan improvements
- Data structures may limit intuitive judgments
Myth 12
Responsibility for assessing general education or institutional outcomes belongs to specific service departments, such as Institutional Assessment Office
The Reality
- Institutional outcomes are an institutional responsibility and programmatic outcomes belong solely to the programs
- Programs assess what graduates can do later in their careers in their respective fields
Myth 13
Assessment is easy and/or involves no extra work
The Reality
- Assessment is an intuitive process for faculty
- Assessment involves intentional curriculum planning
- Assessment requires more coordination than most current curricula
- Assessment involves public conversations about outcomes and criteria and public analysis of results
- May involve both aggregated and individual analyses
- Conversations can lead to clearer, less anecdotal, more concrete decision-making about curriculum, pedagogy, and resources
- Results inform external stakeholders of institutional and programmatic progress
- “Assessment is the systematic collection, review, and use of information about educational programs undertaken for the purpose of improving student learning and development” – Marchese, in Palomba and Banta, Assessment Essentials, 1999