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