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"
|
