WORKSHOP REPORT
Student Learning Assessment Implementation Team 2001
Monday, May 21
Schedule
Morning Dr. Wright's overview of assessment
Afternoon Drafting and refining program goals
Results
23 people attended the morning overview during which Dr. Wright described assessment issues in the light of questions that educators care most about. She identified the four principle actions of the assessment loop: 1) framing questions about educational goals, 2) gathering evidence, 3) interpreting the evidence, and 4) using the results for improvement. At each stage, the emphasis is on inquiry and clarity. She stressed the danger of stopping after external accountability needs are met at step 2, since the internal need to improve student learning isn't addressed fully until step 4 followed by an informed return to step 1. She identified and defined key assessment terms and the roles of different groups in the process. She clarified some recent trends in student learning assessment nationwide. Questions and responses focussed on how to adapt the assessment model to the particular needs of our institution.
In the afternoon session, the 13 participants were the team members plus a few additional volunteers. Interdisciplinary work groups drafted program goals for Business and Office Technology, Medical Assisting, ESL, and Liberal Arts. The work groups shared their drafts with the whole team using overhead transparencies. With Dr. Wright's help, they refined the drafted goals and began to identify more specific sub-goals. The transparencies were collected and typed up for use the next day.
Tuesday, May 22
Schedule
Morning Developing objectives and measurable outcomes under program goals
Afternoon Exploring and applying assessment methods
Results
(From this point on, participants were the same as those in the Monday afternoon session.) Questions were raised about the place of Student Learning Assessment in the larger Strategic Planning process for the college and about how to distinguish operational goals from program goals. Various schemata were discussed. See attachment A for a revised version.
Participants noted that the program goals drafted so far reflected common concerns about the following four areas: 1) communication skills (speaking and writing), 2) college or professional values, 3) problem solving skills (critical, logical, scientific and mathematical reasoning), and 4) ability to use appropriate technology. There was agreement to try to include some adapted form of these four goals in every program and to focus some of our assessment efforts each year on one of these cross-disciplinary areas.
Work groups chose one specific program goal and identified objectives and measurable outcomes, sharing results on overheads and discussing how to refine the language into parallel categories that focus on learning rather than teaching, and how to keep the emphasis on program, rather than classroom goals.
Dr. Wright presented 7 types of assessment methods, ranging from portfolios to standardized tests, and the work groups then identified assessment methods for some of the outcomes already drafted. The materials were again collected for transcription to typed handouts for the next day. In the process, the Assessment Planning Form was revised to respond to the growing understanding of the necessary steps. See Attachment B for the revision.
Wednesday, May 23
Schedule
Morning Wholistic scoring of writing samples
Afternoon Logistics for implementation in the coming year
Results
Reflection on the previous session revealed continuing questions about how to think about assessment methods at the program level, especially since many of the assessment methods are course-embedded and therefore implemented within classrooms. Summaries of program goals were distributed with objectives drafted for some of them along with rough indications of types of appropriate assessment methods. See Attachment C for the revised version.
Reflection also focussed on distinguishing among levels of assessment: teachers' grading of individual students in classes as assessment in the individual sphere; courses adding up to a program assessed in the aggregate sphere; and common goals across several assessed in the larger college community sphere. Degrees of public disclosure were discussed, and participants agreed on the need to control the uses of the information gathered.
Dr. Wright led a session on wholistic assessment of writing samples, and while work groups read an essay, she prepared a model for a rubric identifying characteristics of writing proficiency. When participants reported their responses to the essay, they developed an assessment scale employing parts of the rubric. After this norming session, participants read five other essays and discussed where they belonged on the scale. This model will be developed further in the coming implementation year. A rough draft is included as Attachment D.
Participants agreed to concentrate on assessing writing in the coming year. This will be done on two fronts.
- Wholistic samplings of papers that are already required in BOT (in Business Communication), Medical Assisting (in Medical Ethics) and Liberal Arts (English Composition research paper).
- Wholistic readings of papers generated as widely as possible across the college by volunteering teachers. These papers will adhere to a common format and will be submitted in duplicate: 1) to the teacher for whatever grading purposes the teacher wishes and 2) anonymously to the implementation team for assessment of several common college goals (communication skills, college values, problem solving, appropriate use of writing technology). The team may use the device of secondary readings to measure achievement of each goal.
See Attachment E for the draft of the common assignment format.
Discussion began concerning what questions to ask and record answers to, and how to manage the resulting data and qualitative results. This will be pursued further.
See Attachment F for the information and categories that we may be tracking.
The group agreed to the following: to meet once a month from September through May of the coming academic year for work on writing assessment, to meet twice a semester for review of literature and strategic questions, and to work within departments as consultants on defining program goals and unpacking them into objectives and measurable outcomes.
At closing, the group expressed gratitude to Dr. Wright for the clarification she brought to the fundamental assessment issues, several members borrowed assessment books, and everyone left with a sense of commitment to a common purpose.
|
SLAT Home-Page
Capital Community College