RE: Assessment

On The Web

Thanks to Peter Klassen of the Sociology faculty, the Assessment Committee now has an "unofficial" site on the College's Web site ["unofficial" means that the Committee takes responsibility for the site's design and content, just as the pages for individual faculty members are "unofficial"]. There are two ways to get to the site: from the College's Home Page, click on Academics, then click on Student Outcomes Assessment under the Committees section; or type in the URL <www.cod.edu/outcomes> .

The site is still very much under construction, and much more content is planned, but you can already access all the back issues of this newsletter and link to other nationally recognized sites that provide instructions for specific classroom techniques; definitions of terms; explanations of the principles of good practice; an assessment manifesto; and forums for on-line discussions.

Peter has designed the site for both frames and no-frames access

[those of you who have ever tried to print from a frames site will understand the importance of this feature]. He has also included a useful table of contents that shows not only what is now available but also the types of materials to be added in the future.

If you have suggestions for ways to make this site even more useful, feel free to pass them on to any Committee member or directly to Peter.

IUPUI Conference

Helen Zaleski of the Mathematics faculty was our representative this year at the well-regarded Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis Conference on Assessment. Held last November 10-11, the Conference focused heavily on assessment for engineering and health sciences, but as usual there were a number of presentations with implications for a far wider range of disciplines and assessment issues.

Helen noted that one of the most interesting presentations dealt with a change for assessing the diagnostic skills of physicians-in-training. Rather than giving standardized written tests, some schools have taken to using specially trained actors who present a range of symptoms and medical history if properly queried, a much more "real-life" simulation.

Closer to the issues we deal with here at COD was the presentation on Zero-Defect Student Projects, which is highlighted in this issue's Assessment in Action section.

Of special interest was Helen's observation that many of the four-year colleges represented at the Conference are in the process of devoting significant money to assessment issues: the hiring of full-time administrators to oversee assessment; the delegation of support staff; and the doling out of grant money to support faculty development and assessment research.

Divide & Conquer

The Student Outcomes Assessment Committee has divided itself into two subcommitees to more efficiently deal with the wide range of assessment issues which must be addressed.

As has been noted before, assessment needs to take place at the classroom, multi-section discipline, general education, and institutional effectiveness levels. The thrust of the first two years or so of the Committee's existence has been to focus on the classroom and multi-section discipline levels, but now it is time to continue that effort while also starting to address the often thorny issues surrounding general education assessment [see the discussion in this issue's FAQ section].

Kathy Fitch of the English faculty and Tom Roesing, Associate Dean of Technology, are heading up the classroom and multi-section discipline assessment subcommittee. This group will continue to encourage the good efforts that have already been made to make classroom and multi-section discipline assessment an integral part of our academic culture.

Russ Watson of the Psychology faculty and Lesli Beltran, Assistant Vice President for Instructional Services & Innovation, are spearheading the "Gen Ed" effort. Working closely with the General Education Enduring Purposes Team, this subcommittee will help define what "Gen Ed" means at the College ofDuPage and how it can best be measured.

A. "Gen Ed" assessment is the "can of worms" that every institution must eventually deal with, the one that strikes fear into the hearts of those poor souls who have been given the assignment of developing a "Gen Ed" assessment plan.

The first problem is defining "Gen Ed" because it can mean different things at different institutions and sometimes different things to different programs within an institution. Basically, it is the set of knowledge, skills, and values that all students can reasonably be expected to attain by virtue of their successful completion of a course of study: communications skills; computational skills; critical thinking; citizenship; a commitment to continued learning, etc. However, different institutions may stress different values, so each institution has to define for itself what it will consider "Gen Ed", based on its own philosophy, mission statement, and any other public statements made concerning general education [See pages 10, 11, 66, & 67 of the College of DuPage 1997-1999 Catalog for relevant passages.]

Once the criteria have been identified [and many institutions have found this to be a daunting task], accrediting agencies have asked that there be multiple measures at multiple points in the student's career, such as at initial enrollment, after the first year, at graduation, and perhaps at several points beyond graduation. Some of the criteria, such as computational skills, may be relatively easy to assess, but others, such as ". . . mutual respect in a multicultural and global society" [from COD's Mission Statement] may be much more difficult to measure. And how does one get students to cooperate with this kind of assessment? The literature is full of incidents where schools have tried all sorts of incentives to get students to participate, only to have them "blow off" the tests or fail to return the surveys.

Finally, there is the issue of what to do with the results once they are obtained. The whole idea of assessment is to provide feedback for improvement, but with "Gen Ed" it is not always clear who is supposed to respond to the feedback. For example, feedback about written communication should certainly go to the English faculty, but not exclusively. Any class which requires students to write papers or essay exams is also involved in developing those writing skills, so those instructors need to get the feedback, too. Concepts like "good citizenship" are much more difficult to measure, and it is not nearly as clear-cut as to who should respond to the feedback.

All assessment involves decisions about who to assess, when to assess, how to assess, and what to do with the results, but "Gen Ed" assessment adds some interesting twists to each of these decisions. The members of the "Gen Ed" subcommittee have their jobs cut out for them.

Assessment In Action

A Sharing Of Ideas
Zero-Defect Research Papers

L. Leslie Gardner, a faculty member in both the departments of Business and Mathematics at the University of Indianapolis, gave an interesting presentation on zero-defect student papers and projects at the recent IUPUI Conference on Assessment. The project was created for business classes studying quality assurance, but the principles should apply to almost any subject area.

Basically, the zero-defect approach is an extension of the rubric approach that was described in a previous issue of the newsletter. Students are given all the tools they need to create a defect-free paper:

· a packet of instructions for the paper (a rubric)

· an example of student-generated zero-defect paper so that they understand this is a do-able project

· quality assurance checklists (another part of the rubric)

· a lecture which covers both topic selection and explanations of the instructions and checklists

· multiple phases in the paper, each with its own checklist and due date

· the opportunity to redo any phase of the project until zero-defects are achieved or the due date of the phase is reached. Students who achieve zero-defects before the due date of the section receive a bonus.

As a further incentive, students know that selected papers will be submitted by the department to a well known international competition for business-related student papers.

Professor Gardner points out a number of benefits to this approach to student papers:

· students are able to reduce the amount of time spent on the project because their course of action is so clear-cut, and their frustration level is thereby reduced

· the checklists make diagnosis of errors

immediate, and there are far fewer challenges to the grades assigned

· The professor is seen as a coach, someone on their side helping them to write a perfect paper, not an adversary looking for errors to justify a lower grade

· students learn to diagnose and correct their errors, and there is a rise in self-esteem when they realize they can achieve a perfect score.

This is just a brief overview of a detailed six page handout. Either Helen Zaleski or Jim Belz can arrange to get a copy to you.

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