Hi Jim,

I tried sending this yesterday, and had a lot of trouble.  I never got a copy, so I assume it did not go out.

I tried sending it again this morning and got a message that it was already sent, and I needed to revise it to send it again.

So, here is a revision.  If you already received it, please ignore this copy.

Bob

Hi Jim,

As one of the few who voted in favor of the proposal, I want to add my 2 cents to the discussion.  I have not had a chance to see read the material you attached, but feel strongly about this issue.

First, and most important, as faculty we must not be opposed to assessment!  We insist on assessing our students; those for whom we work should be allowed, in fact encouraged, to assess us.  If we are failing in our work, we should have consequences.  BUT, assessing us should be based on a clear understanding of what we do.

This starts with a definition of what is the institution's goal.  John Carver and his wife Miriam have written two books on not-for-profit governance (the names of which momentarily escape me) in which they focus on three questions: what good, for whom, at what cost!  (Peter Drucker has also defined the not-for-profit governance process in similar terms.)  The key in their writings is that one must focus on desired outcomes for (in this case) students, not on what faculty do.  The first step, then, in assessment is to define the outcomes for the student.  This will have the effect of making certain courses more similar than if we all did what we wanted to do.  Whether this similarity is in the area of process (critical thinking, writing, etc.) or in the content, or both, is something up for discuussion.

How much these outcomes will differ from institution to institution is debatable as well.  Certainly certain content will not differ.  Students from all institutions will need to know the answer to 2+2, and they will need to vcome to the same answer.  Other content areas may differ according to instutional emphases.  Process also should be fairly similar.  Problem solving  is something all graduates should be capable of - while they may have learned it in different contexts, the basic approaches should not be too different. 

Once we agree on outcomes, it is possible to assess whether they are being met.  Assessment should be built around the outcomes desired.  To the extent these are the same, multi-institutional aassessment is possible; to the extent these differ, it may not be possible.  I have no fear about "teaching to the test;" in fact, it is the reverse: we should be testing what is being taught.  If faculty are not engaged in fostering the desired outcomes, then testing on them will result in "poor grades" for faculty and/or institutions.  Maybe this is a good thing.  

As to the impact of tests narrowing the curriculum, this only happens if the testing is the "tail that wags the dog."  As curricular changes are made, it becomes necessary to redefine the test instrument.  We recently decided that my Law course needed to cover additional materials; when the course changed, my exams also had to change.  If assessment need not cover all outcomes, then maybe the tests do not need to change unless outcomes undergo radical changes.

I think the greatest problem in this area is lack of trust.   Many faculty do not trust students and vice-versa.  Many faculty do not trust administrators and vice-versa.  System people do not trust institutional people and vice versa.  Why this lack of trust exists and what can be done to change it is a whold different discussion (perhaps more than one).  

Second, why we should support (have supported) the proposal presented at the Senate.  As I understood Aachim's messages throughout the semester - assessment is coming no matter what we do.  The opriginal porposal from the Trustees would have mandated a number of things regardless of our concerns (valid or otherwise).  The most recent proposal allowed us some possibility of meaningful input.  This latter is better than the former.  By rejecting all formns of assessment, we invite the Trustees to categorize us as being "out of control" and this is against our interests (and also those of our students).

Third: some specific thought about your comments: 

You make the comment: "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?"  Perhaps the desired outcome is his ability to engange in exchange of thoughts with the community.

You make the comment: "#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."  I think this goes right to the issue of trust.  Our students assess whether they have mastered the material.  They regulate their study by this means.  We independently assess them as a control on their self assessment.  Why shouldn't our empoloyers (and funders) exercise the same rights.  We all tend to become complacent, sloppy, ...  We need outside assessment to make sure we do not lose focus. The money will only be wasted if the additional layer fails to make us any surer; this in turn will occur if the additional layer is not well thought out and/or irrelevant.  

Lest this is misinterpreted, let me add that I share the concern that any assessment imposed will be poorly designed.  However, I believe this fight needs to be about that issue, and not about whether there will be central and external assessment.

Is this a discussion for a future breakfast group?

Bob

-----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"