TB-L Archives

April 2004

TB-L@LISTSERV.ONEONTA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
Teaching Breakfast List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Date:
Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:28:38 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Teaching Breakfast List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (201 lines)
When it comes to assessment, most of our conversations begin at the
middle or even end of the topic. I agree that the environment is toxic,
so we carefully need to take ownership of our programs. This is a first
step. My belief is that if we sit down within our departments and
consider what we want our students to gain from earning a major in ____,
we will define what it is we are trying to accomplish. This shift in
focus from our "courses" to our "programs" is critical, and I don't
think we all have considered this carefully. I guess I have to speak for
myself only and so I will tell you that when I arrived here, I focused
on a course called Child Development. I had the theory, knowledge,
research, and practical application down. What I didn't see was how that
required course fit into a program in whatever major required it, even
the most common major, Education. Traditionally we have hired faculty
who have expertise in some particular area of a discipline, and we have
not thought about a general knowledge base associated with a degree. If
we can make the change to consider our programs rather than our courses,
we will have made the most critical change to support program
evaluation, i.e. assessment. 
I think when all we do is refuse to participate, we open the door for
more mandates.



Joanne M. Curran, Ph.D.
205A Fitzelle Hall
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, NY 13820

-----Original Message-----
From: Teaching Breakfast List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Greenberg, James ([log in to unmask])
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 8:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Assessment and SUNY

Attached to this posting please find a PDF file by Shavelson on
Responding
Responsible to the Frenzy to Assess Learning in Higher Education.


Can you tell me what you think of this?

To get the ball rolling, I tell you what I think (it is quite a
ramble...
sorry). I'm no expert in this area, in fact I feel like I shouldn't even
participate in the conversation at times since I know so little... but
what
the heck, here goes...

At  last weeks Senate meeting the almost unanimous voice of the Senate
was
to reject the idea of outside assessment as I understand it.  Every
argument
that I can  remember from this meeting  is articulately discussed in
this
article.   Here are a few of those arguments that I remember and my take
on
them.

1- "Assessment often tries to measure  filling the bucket, but what
about
lighting the candle?  Aren't we about  both?"  Shavelson discusses this
concept  with the notion of  higher learning vs. domain specific
knowledge.   We really need both  and are about both.  Most people
(surveys
suggest)  say that what  Higher Ed. should be about are the "lighting
the
candle" types of things, but  assessment only hits at the filling the
bucket.  This is one of the issues that is the source of the tension in
this
whole assessment argument if  you ask me.

Makes sense - most  of what I learned in College that I retained as far
as
knowledge goes is in  Geography.  The rest of what I got from College is
the
higher level  stuff, how to learn, sense of self, awareness of world,
etc.
This  higher level stuff is what college goal statements are usually
about,
but it  is the lower level stuff that  is usually assessed.  The point
about
this being a problem with current assessment practice is an excellent
one
and  that at the very least any assessment we accept should make a clear
distinction between achievements in domain specific knowledge and more
general abilities.

 2- "We all know that a standard  test, no matter how good, will result
in
 teaching to the test and narrowing  down the curriculum."   Shavelson
 discusses this issue as well.   Standard tests tend to move education
toward a narrowly defined  curricula - a one size fits all notion - and
away
from the things we perhaps  TRULY value in our educational systems.
Things
like sense of maturity,  ability to get along with people different from
self, etc.  A  real fear  faculty have (and I completely agree with them
on
this one) is that   standardized assessment will lead to a more narrow
curricula - which in turn  we will regret down the road.  We will, with
our
honest good intentions,  undo  what we treasure most in our higher
educational system.

 3-  "I'm highly skeptical that any test or tests, no matter how good,
can
 really  lead to good assessment and a process that betters education."
 Shavelson  does a nice job with this issue - giving the history of
 standardized tests and  the thinking behind them.  What they are good
for
and  what they are not  good for.   For example, do we want to measure
only
the  relatively  permanent knowledge students get, which we know comes
from
 extensive  engagement, practice and feedback like the Pennsylvania
Study
tried  to do or  do we want a more comprehensive assessment that also
tries
to  measure  reasoning, decision making, etc.  Or, are we interested in
measuring domain  acquired knowledge (why does water make a glacier
move?).
These  various  levels of knowledge are the problem.  Some are easier
than
others to   assess.  Some, (the most important ones perhaps) may be
nearly
impossible  to  assess since only a lifetime of experience can bear them
out.    Perhaps a  survey of alumni over 50 is the best way to assess
these.

 In conclusion:   His propositions at the end  are good, but lack any
help.
 For example, I completely agree with #1  where we need to assess both
 cognitive and social - civic things and we have  only been able to
focus on
 cognitive up to this point.  But how do you  assess the other?  I'm not
 pessimistic by nature, but good luck with  doing this.  Assessing
social
 things depends on values, culture and  morals.  If we don't all share
the
same  ones - and I'm afraid our society  doesn't, then what are good and
bad
outcomes?  An illustration, that  might not be necessary to you is,
"tolerance  of others opinions."  One of  the most educated persons I
know
in this  community is the least tolerant  person I've ever met.  He
continually writes  letters to the editor of our  local newspaper saying
how
tolerance will be the death of our way of life.   Would his college say
he
was successful or not?  Would they say his  ideas are the desired
outcome of
their programs?

 His #2 is right on the money.  We  need to hold this conversation -
honestly  and openly with the public and  trustees and any others in our
society that  want to join in.  The  environment right now seems fairly
toxic to me for such  discussions to take  place.  Why?  Why can't we
invite
the trustees and others  to "town  house" discussions about these issues
and
also hear what they have  to say.

 #3 I've already spoken to.  We will narrow our curricula  and we may
not
like  what we do to a wonderful system that is working pretty  darn well
at
the  moment.  If people are worried about the growing costs  of higher
education  than let's talk about that.  But we shouldn't use  assessment
to
cut costs,  the price is too high.

 #4 is right on the  money and I would vote for using his conceptual
framework.   It is as good  as any I've seen.  (At least I understand
his!!!)

 #5  hits  at the real burr I have about assessment.  Isn't multi-level
 assessment  what we do now?  Isn't grading students assignments and
giving
 them  grades in courses just this?  Do we need another layer on top of
this?    Seems so, but I shake my head in disbelief at the money we will
waste and  the people's time we will waste to add this extra layer which
in
the  end  won't make us any surer of the output than we are now.

Sorry  to ramble and ramble..... but putting this down helped me encode
it
better.  What do you think?   (I bet Achim is listening)

Mr. James B. Greenberg
Director Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
Milne Library
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820

email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 607-436-2701
fax:   607-436-3081

"Ignorance is curable, stupidity lasts forever"

ATOM RSS1 RSS2