Two Principles of Effective Assessment

David BushmanDavid Rehm

Mount St. Mary’s UniversityEmmitsburg, Maryland

Engage in a discussion with others about assessment

Be as interactive as possible We don’t want to present a “complete”

picture but instead wish to share our experiences

Aim of this Presentation

What has been the primary driver to get faculty on board with assessment?

How successful have you been? How much “top-down” energy has been

required? What kind of energy has been most useful? Describe the sustainability of your efforts.

Where are you with assessment?

Responses?

First assessment plan written in 2001 Approved by the faculty after lengthy deliberation Established an Assessment Committee Role: not police but support Reviews assessment activities of each department Engages in conversation with department chairs

and program heads

The Mount: Context (1)

Assessment Works at Various Levels: Core Programs Major Programs (including 5 year external

reviews) Overall Core Program (Utilized 1999-2004) Overall Undergraduate Program

The Mount: Context (2)

Within 5 years, almost all departments and programs were engaging in assessment of student learning – at the various levels referred to

Tended to use the same instrument a number of times

Less attention paid to developing a 5-year plan and mapping out how all the goals of the program would be met in that period

The Mount: Context (3)

Also were not as attentive as we could be to documenting sufficiently how improvements were made based on what was learned. (We identified results, ways to improve, and what we intended to do; not sufficient follow-up after that.)

The Mount: Context (4)

We believe we met with some success; it is based on 2

principles

Separate judgments about process from judgments about content

When this got started, deep concern that assessment would be used as a wedge or hammer to drive curricular changes

Have convinced folks that assessment is an opportunity to reflect on how to improve (without concern about elimination of programs)

Learned that a realization about a problem in a program does not lead to a conclusion about whether to run that program

Principle #1: Appropriate Boundaries

This requires Trust Appreciation for what assessment can and

cannot do (limits in precision) Appreciation for what assessment should

and should not do (kinds of judgments we make on the basis of what we learn – e.g., align goals and practice)

Principle #1: Appropriate Boundaries

In order to empower faculty (and administrative offices) to do this work:

Establish academic and administrative assessment committees

Focus on process: make sure that programs and offices complete the process

Provide support/aid to all interested parties Engage in extensive conversation to

facilitate understanding

Principle #2: Empowerment

This requires: A ton of patience and time Senior leadership buy-in Significant coordination

Principle #2: Empowerment

In what ways are these two principles in play on your campus? In what ways do these principles resonate with your experiences?

Don’t brow-beat the faculty. Instead, engage in discussions with all department chairs, program heads, and administrative heads.

Highlight the work of departments and programs that are doing a good job. Have them present to chairs and program heads at meetings and in other contexts.

Recommendations

Further Recommendations?