RE: Assessment

There's Still Time To Report On Your Assessment Project

During the 1996-1997 Academic Year, every faculty member was encouraged to try at least one Classroom Assessment Technique (CAT) and report [anonymously, if so desired] which technique(s) were used, how well they worked, what knowledge was gained, and what modifications to instruction, if any, were made or planned as a result of the CAT.

College-wide there has been a very good response, but some faculty may not have received the report form and others may have overlooked it in the busy days at the end of Spring Quarter. If you did do an as- yet-unreported assessment project, the Assessment Committee would really like to add your findings to the already substantial report being compiled.

The report form is available via E-Mail from the Public Folders. Look for <Reporting Forms > under the <Assessment (Outcomes)> folder. Included are both the individual report form and the discipline report form for reporting on the assessment of a multi-section class. Alternatively, copies of both report forms should be readily available from your Division Office.

The individual report form does not require an elaborate, time consuming response. Please finish your report as quickly as possible and send through campus mail to Carroll Westergren,

Instructional Services & Innovation

Changing of the Guard

Dr. Lesli Beltran, Assistant Vice President for Instructional Services & Innovation, has assumed the duties of Co-Chair of the Student Outcomes Assessment Committee. Lesli has been a very active faculty member of the Committee since its inception, so she brings a wealth of experience to her new role as Co-Chair.

The Committee is set up with two Co-Chairs, one a faculty member and one an administrator. Lesli succeeds Irene Kovala, Dean of Alternative Learning, as the administrator Co-Chair.

Rene Kovala has worked tirelessly for this Committee from the very start, and the Committee wishes to extend special thanks to her for her invaluable contributions. She has been a good friend to all of us, and we truly miss her good humor and smiling face at our meetings.

The Student Outcomes Assessment Committee has been designated as one of the College's Supporting Institutional Plans (SIPS). To understand exactly what this means, one needs an understanding of the College planning model.

Although not the official explanation, one way to envision the overall planning effort is to liken it to a gothic cathedral. At the very top (the spire) is the Mission Statement of the College. Directly supporting the Mission Statement is the Educational Planning Council (the nave), made up of the President's Cabinet; heads of the constituency groups (Chair of the Faculty Senate, Chair of the Administrative Council, Chair of the Classified Personnel Association); and the Team Leaders of the Enduring Purposes Committees. Undergirding the structure are the Enduring Purposes Committees themselves; and like flying buttresses that give lateral support are the Supporting Institutional Plans: the Financial Plan, Technology Plan, Human Resources Plan, Facilities Plan, Enrollment Management Plan, and Assessment Plan.

The Committee is pleased that Student Outcomes Assessment has received this recognition as a vital component in the College's planning model.

F A Q (Frequently Asked Questions)

Q. Among Assessment-wonks, I hear occasional references to something called "The Principles for Good Practice." What's that all about?

A. In 1987, a team of 13 educational research experts from a variety of institutions got together to see if they could make some sense out of a number of reports published in the previous five years that advocated a variety of reforms in higher education.

They ended up issuing a position paper entitled, "Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education," which was published in the March, 1987, issue of the AAHE (American Association for Higher Education) Bulletin (pp. 3-7) and as ERIC Document 282491. Based on their understanding of the research related to teaching and learning, they posited that good practice in undergraduate education:

1. encourages contacts between students and faculty;
2. develops reciprocity and cooperation among students;
3. uses active learning techniques;
4. gives prompt feedback;
5. emphasizes time on task;
6. communicates high expectations;
7. respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

To help spread the word about the seven principles, two survey forms were developed to encourage faculty members to do a self-assessment of their teaching practice. With the financial help of the Lilly Endowment and the Johnson Foundation, the surveys were offered to colleges around the country. The initial printing of 40,000 forms was quickly depleted, and by late 1989, more than 350,000 surveys had been distributed, giving an indication of how widely the seven principles have been examined and embraced by higher education.

The seven principles directly promote the learning process; thus, there is an immediate connection to outcomes assessment, which attempts to measure how effectively learning has taken place. By examining how widely and deeply the seven principles have pervaded the College at the classroom, departmental, programmatic, and institutional levels, one gets an indirect yet highly reliable indicator of the effectiveness of the learning environment.

Assessment In Action A Sharing Of Ideas
Team Learning

At the AAHE Conference on Assessment & Quality held in Miami Beach this past June, Larry K. Michaelson, Professor of Management at the University of Oklahoma, presented a half day workshop on using assessment to build Learning Teams. He has published extensively on the topic and had much to say about both the benefits and pitfalls of learning teams, far more than can be condensed into this brief column. However, a good example of his approach to teaching/learning is the Readiness Assurance Process.

At the beginning of each new unit of study, students are given true/false-multiple choice tests covering the content of their assigned reading. Using a Scantron right in the classroom, the instructor gives the students immediate feedback on how well they scored. They then move into their learning teams [these are permanent teams that were formed during the first or second class period], and each team retakes the same test that was given individually. [Students know that their ultimate grade in the course will be based on their individual performance, the performance of their team, and their individual "helping behavior," which is evaluated by their team peers]. Once the team has received its score on the exam, it has the opportunity to write a short, written appeal to explain why they think their answer to a particular question is correct. If the instructor believes they have made a good case, the team score is revised upward. Finally, the instructor gives oral feedback to the entire class, focusing on any misunderstandings that may still remain after the appeals have been completed.

What are the advantages of this approach? Students know they must do the required reading ahead of time if they are going to score well individually. The instructor saves lecture time by only dealing with those concepts that students have had difficulty grasping on their own. Students learn that the group almost invariably outperforms any individual member of the group. The process itself is a very powerful teaching tool in that it promotes the sound understanding of fundamental course concepts in a variety of ways: reading, individual recall, immediate feedback in the scoring, group discussion and peer feedback, group decision making, focused re-study in the appeal process, and very specific, to-the-point feedback from the instructor.

Team Learning is probably not an activity that should be entered into without a significant amount of study and pre-planning, but according to the practitioners like Professor Michaelson, the effort is well worth the rewards for both students and faculty.

Copyright © 1998 College of DuPage
Students' Outcomes Assessment Committee  · (630)-942-2081
klassen@cdnet.cod.edu
Updated December 16, 1999
Disclaimer