Search News


Browse Archives

News

The New Assessment Market

January 17, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The Spellings commission may not have won the hearts of everyone in academe, but one of the most successful software businesses in higher education was clearly paying attention. Blackboard on Tuesday announced officially (as it had been suggesting less officially for several months) that it was offering products in a new line -- assessment -- from individual courses to entire institutions. The announcement cited the commission's interest in assessment as one bit of evidence of the increased pressure on colleges to document the learning that takes place on campus.

Blackboard -- which dominates the course-management industry, especially after its absorption of WebCT -- has the resources to make a big push in the industry and it has contracts with thousands of institutions for other services and high visibility on campuses, where it has many fans and also critics. Company officials say that they have unique advantages to help colleges improve education and satisfy accreditors, government officials and others who want more evidence of colleges' performance.

A few young companies that beat Blackboard into the business say that they already offer the services Blackboard is now starting. They said that they took the arrival of "the gorilla" -- as one competitor termed Blackboard -- as evidence that their industry was succeeding and would grow. Other observers of the assessment scene had a range of views, with some hopeful that the new competition could ease the data collection burdens that colleges face and others fearful that systems like the ones prevalent in this new industry will inevitably restrict the autonomy of faculty members.

David Yaskin, Blackboard's vice president of product marketing, said that the new services represented a significant shift for the company. "We've given colleges tools for the delivery of courses, but not for the management," he said. The new tools will allow colleges to measure course effectiveness and to act on those findings, to figure out if there are gender or ethnic patterns in course performance, to track alumni or employer satisfaction, and to do all of this on both micro- and macro- levels, so that a department head might have better planning information and a provost might have better information to submit to an accreditor.

The "Blackboard Outcomes System" is actually a series of systems. One tool allows for the collection of electronic portfolios, so student work in a variety of formats can be gathered and analyzed. Other tools allow colleges to set standards for course performance to see -- based on data gathered by faculty members -- whether students are meeting those standards. Options are provided for course evaluations. Other tools manage surveys. Still others group together all the mandates a college might be facing and help track performance on meeting various goals.

"In putting this together, we were trying to understand what does higher education do in terms of assessment. What are the hard things about it? What stops faculty and administrators from embracing a culture of assessment?" Yaskin said.

"We're trying to get at the heart of learning outcomes," he said, using a phrase much favored by the Spellings commission.

Yaskin stressed that there was no single formula offered in the new services. Colleges and Blackboard would customize the various programs to reflect institutional priorities and goals.

Many professors have viewed assessment requirements with some fear that they would amount to more work for them, and less autonomy over courses, and Yaskin said that "a huge concern" of the company was how to set up its system in a way that would build faculty confidence.

One way Blackboard has done this, he said, was with a "flexible permissions structure," such that a college could set up the system so that individual faculty members could gather information on their courses, but do so privately, without giving access to administrators or anyone else. But Yaskin acknowledged that it would be the college's decision on whether or not to give professors that right to keep information confidential, and that some, particularly in for-profit higher education, probably would not do so.

Blackboard does not like to reveal its pricing generally and Yaskin said he couldn't say anything about how much these services would cost, except that the formulas would be enrollment-based. He indicated that the costs aren't small, however: When asked if colleges could use some, but not all, of the services offered, he said that they could do so, but that "the value that justifies the expense is when you integrate all the work that is done."

One of the first two institutions to sign on was the University of Texas at Brownsville. Eli Peña, director of institutional effectiveness, said that assessment is complicated there, as it is both a community college and a full university, offering certificate through graduate programs. At the same time, it has goals to meet that it has set itself, and that are set for it by the university system, the state, and its accreditor. "We need things to be aligned. We need to better manage all of the processes we have in place," Peña said.

His hope for the system is that it won't just allow for more efficient production of reports and data, but will encourage faculty and administrators to evaluate how to improve. "Obviously we have to demonstrate things to others, but it's what we demonstrate to ourselves," he said.

While Blackboard is hailing its services as revolutionary, at least two young companies already offer services that they say are similar (and that Blackboard says are not as comprehensive). Nuventive, founded in 1998, offers an e-portfolio system and also an assessment program, known as TracDat. Nuventive has licensed TracDat to 165 colleges, most of them in the last few years. Malcolm Hobbs, vice president of marketing, said that the services could be purchased either by departments or entire colleges.

"Blackboard is certainly interested in pursuing additional revenue opportunities and we welcome new competitors into the space," Hobbs said. "But we've been doing this since 1998 and we have a very good insight into what institutions are trying to do." (In common with Blackboard, Hobbs declined to discuss pricing.)

Another company -- WEAVEonline -- officially launched in May, as a spinoff from an assessment program created at Virginia Commonwealth University. It is about to sign its 40th client -- most of which approached Virginia Commonwealth after hearing presentations about its assessment tools. The growth reached a level, officials said, where it made sense for the company to become independent, although Virginia Commonwealth is among the owners.

Barbara Fuhrman, director of institutional effectiveness at WEAVEonline, said that the company's strength was its close ties to academe. "We're not corporate folks. We're not technology folks. We understand how faculty work," said Furhman, a former education dean at Louisiana State University.

At the same time, Fuhrman acknowledged that assessment may involve pushing professors a bit. She gave as an example a political science department that said it wanted students to learn to think critically. That's not enough, she said. "Faculty would be prompted to say what the means in a measurable way."

WEAVEonline's costs vary by institutional size, but the initial set up fee could be $10,000 to $40,000. Annual license fees could run a little less than the set-up fee for smaller institutions and one-third of the set-up fee for larger institutions. Fuhrmann said she wasn't surprised by Blackboard's announcement because it has had employees showing up at WEAVEonline demonstrations. "Do we need to keep our eye on them? Certainly," she said, adding that she felt very confident that her company would be growing.

Judith S. Eaton, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, said that there has been periodic interest from companies in helping colleges gather the materials they need in accreditation reviews and promoting better assessment. A concern she hears from many colleges is over how much data they need to gather, how to present and analyze it, and so forth.

Eaton said that if the new Blackboard services "are positioned to help colleges deal with the challenge of everything they need for assessment," the company could find a good market. If colleges view this "as one additional thing," then it will be a tougher sell, she said.

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors and a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, offered a different perspective. He said he had "no problem with faculty members independently choosing to evaluate their courses in any way that they want, and it's certainly possible that some faculty would find a tool like this useful in assessing whether their course met the goals that they had set for it."

But he added that there are many courses for which an assessment tool "wouldn't be helpful at all, and I'm entirely against imposing additional assessment tools on the faculty."

In his courses, students have weekly writing assignments and are constantly judged on their classroom comments, Nelson said, giving him plenty of information to assess what students are learning. He said he worried that faculty members were being encouraged to accept "half-witted, simple-minded assessment instead of a feedback system that's already pretty sophisticated."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The New Assessment Market

  • Posted by Ken Schmidt on April 22, 2008 at 8:50pm EDT
  • RE: "On-line assessment for either course grades, formative or summative assessment will not work until the software programmers and vendors find some way of verifying who is actually taking the assessment.......but the issue is still the same: you need to know who is actually doing the required work and submitting the assessment material...and the person being assessed needs to have some incentive to do their best work."

    No one has solved these problems yet.

    J Pritchard, CSU San Bernardino, at 8:55 pm EST on January 17, 2007"

    ORACLE can do this..

  • Posted by Ken Schmidt on April 22, 2008 at 8:50pm EDT
  • My previous comment was a misinterpretation. Please retract or contact me for clarification. My apologies.

  • The Computerized Assessment Market
  • Posted by Sean McKitrick , Assistant Provost for Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment at Binghamton University on January 17, 2007 at 8:15am EST
  • Blackboard's introduction into the assessment market comes as no surprise, as there are several other assessment programs out there that can be used for the same purposes.

    The confusion as to whether or not such assessment programs can/should be used depends on what type of assessment we are considering. If we are hoping to enhance formative assessment (the use of assessments, usually, be instructors and departments to see how well students are developing an understanding of certain areas of emphasis), then Blackboard's movement into this area seems like a natural choice. In some respects, it already has such capabilities.

    In my opinion, however, I think Blackboard might run into trouble if the emphasis is upon summative assessment (where departments and programs look at their student learning objectives and goals, and then try to figure out how to further enhance student performance based upon aggregate assessment information). The key is not merely to measure student performance, but to motivate faculty to discuss and act upon any information that stems from such measurements, be they qualitative and quantitative. Unfortunately, I think that many assessment products simply assume that campuses will consider their assessment efforts "done" just because they have managed to use the latest, glitziest assessment product. Although getting faculty on board is a challenge, the real challenge is to get them to use the information to improve student performance on their (the faculty's) own terms. And my concern stems from the feeling that many institutions that just because they appear to be measuring learning, they rarely include faculty in discussions about strengths and weaknesses in student learning and what to do about them.

  • Posted by Chris Davis , Director of Assessment at Baker College on January 17, 2007 at 9:00am EST
  • I was one of the academic partners involved in providing input and feedback on the development of outcomes.

    I agree that, as with online delivery, the technology is only a fraction of the story. You have to have human buy-in and participation for doing assessment.

    Blackboard Outcomes is simply a tool to facilitate the assessment process. It does not prescribe a certain way of doing assessment and was designed to provide flexibility for faculty working individually, in departments, colleges or institutions to manage the process of collecting, reporting, and analyzing assessment results.

    I think anyone looking for a cookie cutter model that they can drop in and tell them how to do assessment will be disappointed with the product, because it does not do that. It may help some institutions structure their internal decisions about how to do assessment, but it will not make those decisions for you.

  • formative assessment and ePortfolios
  • Posted by bradley bleck , instructor at Spokane Falls CC on January 17, 2007 at 2:51pm EST
  • I'll begin by stating that I'm no fan of Blackboard, nor WebCT for that matter, the demise of which I do not mourn. This is just a heads up when it comes to how many grains of salt you take my comments with.

    I had the pleasure of serving on a state-wide evaluation committee that chose ePortfolio software, the sort of thing Bb is hawking, for Washington state's 32 technical and community colleges. Bb was not even in the running. In fact, very few programs made the cut because so few, only one in fact, met the necessary ADA requirements, which basically means no java.

    That being said, the package we chose, Chalk and Wire (chalkandwire.com) was head and shoulders above the others for providing formative assessment. I'm piloting a class with the software this quarter and what I most like about it is the way it's helping me rethink my teaching. I'm not the greatest teacher in the world, nor am I the lousiest, but I'm always looking for a way to better enable my students to learn, and so far what I'm doing has resulted in unsolicited feedback indicating that what's called for in the Chalk and Wire process works (and no, I'm no paid spokesman for the company; I get nothing for this).

    What I like most in the formative aspect is that when students post work for response (call it grading if you will) there is a rubric that I can attach directly to the assignment. Students see the rubric upfront, I use the rubric to respond to the work and students can zero in on the particular expectations. The problematic, one of them anyway, is that I have to attach numbers to the rubric levels, which I'm not keen on, but I'm doing it to see how it work. Plus, creating workable rubrics in a lot of work and they constantly need tinkering, at least when I develop them.

    Logistically, in giving students feedback, formative assessment, the student document comes up in a window with each element of the rubric, one at a time, in an adjoining window. Not only can I rate the element being assessed with a 0-4 (think E/F through A), but I can also type in a comment for that student, explaining why I made the choice I did. This gives them particular directions to take in further revising their work.

    Of all the programs I helped evaluate, and where the companies were in terms of being able to offer a tool that lived up to their PR hype and worked effectively for teaching and learning ahead of program and institutional assessment, though Chalk and Wire does this pretty well too, they were the best and worth looking at if teaching and learning are what you want to see driving your assessment programs.

  • Posted by J Pritchard at CSU San Bernardino on January 17, 2007 at 8:55pm EST
  • On-line assessment for either course grades, formative or summative assessment will not work until the software programmers and vendors find some way of verifying who is actually taking the assessment.

    There is probably less problem with electronic portfolios (which take a lot of time to put together for submission) and with low stakes collection of data and student performance information for program evaluation purposes than there is for course grading, but the issue is still the same: you need to know who is actually doing the required work and submitting the assessment material...and the person being assessed needs to have some incentive to do their best work.

    No one has solved these problems yet.

  • certification
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on January 17, 2007 at 11:35pm EST
  • How are the eportfolios certified by faculty? Is there a letter grade and narrative to expand on a student's learning. Are employers accepting eportfolios (certified or un-certified by faculty)?

  • Blackboard performance
  • Posted by Somewhere in Georgia on January 18, 2007 at 5:45am EST
  • Blackboard would do well to clean up its annexation of WebCT before it trys something else. Faculty and students are experiencing the worst service ever since Blacboard gobbled up WebCT.

  • Posted by Greg Tropea , Critical Thinking Coordinator at Cal Sate Univ. Chico on January 18, 2007 at 7:30am EST
  • One technique linguists use in field work is to present a phrase to a native speaker of a language and ask whether this is something they would say. Try it out yourself with this sentence: "Creating a culture of assessment would be one of the best uses of faculty time and university resources." Do you find it just trips off the tongue?

    I submit that the only people who would find this sentence to be natural are those who put management ahead of learning. There is something deeply wrong when an item of overhead--in this case, accounting in a general sense--gets confused with the college/university's core business. That learning and assessment are in a dynamic relationship is not in question, but they should not be collapsed into one thing. (Think about how Zen treats awareness and reflective consciousness if that is helpful.)

    As I said in an assessment meeting just yesterday morning as I proposed an assessment use of WebCT Vista far removed from what I see in the company's literature, assessment has had a good couple of decades to become something other than a four-letter word in the lexicon of most faculty. That it remains such a negatively nuanced term is not due to a lack of interest in better teaching among the faculty; indeed, in the thirty-plus years since I taught my first course I have found that just about all of my colleagues enjoy reflecting on their work. But I have yet to find one who believes that beyond the simplest of training objectives, the purposes of education are served by quality assurance techniques based on the metaphor of factory production.

    I believe the AAUP's principles should provide the philosophical touchstone for any effort to create an institutional assessment infrastructure. I don't hear that in what Bb is saying, in spite of the claims that they are not pushing one-size-fits-all assessment. Maybe they have goods I don't know about, but at the moment I'd say you don't care how many clever configurations of hats someone has to offer when you are looking for shoes.

    I'm sorry to say that most of the assessment material I encounter reeks of ignorance of the 20th century university's history. I wish it weren't so, as I have been fascinated by quality assurance since I faced that issue as a bottom-line reality in a restaurant I owned some years ago. But today's bottom line is that Cary Nelson is absolutely right to worry about reductionistic assessment practices because we have had so much of that dreck foisted upon us over the years.

    We are dealing with a very big problem: a phrase like "culture of assessment" can gain currency only in an atmosphere of obliviousness to culture itself.

  • Embracing
  • Posted by Untenured in NY on January 18, 2007 at 1:55pm EST
  • "What stops faculty from embracing a culture of assessment?" Some of us prefer to teach.

  • red herring
  • Posted by bradley bleck , instructor at Spokane Falls CC on January 18, 2007 at 1:56pm EST
  • I'm not sure why J. Pritchard is concerned with who the electronically assessed students are, but this is a commonly raised concern that I'd say is more red herring than anything. I've been in the classroom for only 15 years, short by many folks standards. However, in that time I've never asked anyone to prove who they are.

    Sure, I showed ID when I took the GRE and that sort of thing, but that's about it. Never in a classroom did I show personal or student ID, nor have I asked for it. Why don't we expect this from students in a classroom, or why do we worry about it when we don't see students? In a well constructed and run course, is the likelihood of identity fraud sorts of cheating really more likely? I think not.

  • Diverse systems and moving targets: Blackboard's contribution
  • Posted by Matt Braaten , Dir. Academic Web Communications at Lander University on January 19, 2007 at 1:30pm EST
  • We’ve been researching assessment and portfolio solutions for over a year now (far too long) and have looked at TracDat, iWebfolio, LiveText, TK20 (now bust), WEAVEonline and Blackboard. Having just submitted our compliance document for SACS accreditation, we’ve got ‘assessment’ on the brain and know that in some practical, convenient way, we need to better track our assessment efforts on a regular basis. My comments here are for those who may be looking at Blackboard as a solution and are curious about how it is packaged and marketed.

    How soon is too soon for a player like Blackboard to enter the fray of a growing assessment market? That depends. If you believe the tracking of your institution’s assessment should be mainstreamed, packaged and interconnected with a suite of education applications, then Blackboard’s solution is at least worth looking at. However, there are a few things you should know that you won’t get from the above article.

    Since we were looking for a solution that could integrate with our course management solution (WebCT), we began talks for an early adoption program for Blackboard’s Outcomes Solution, but found that integration has its price. Blackboard’s Outcomes Solution is a package deal, which includes their Content System and Community System, and is, I’m told, somewhat dependant on these systems to work all its interconnected magic. This may be what is meant by the article’s reference to Blackboard’s “series of systems.” The problem for us is that we already have a Content and Community system in place and can’t justify the expense of purchasing this suite of products just to get access to their assessment application. I asked if they would consider a solution that was less integrated (crazy, I know) so that we could afford it, and was politely told no, that wasn’t possible. No shame in asking.

    How this strategy is going to work with other institutions, I can only guess, but it seems like Blackboard will need some marketing finesse to convince institutions to buy the farm for a few choice pigs.

    What does it mean then when Yaskin affirms that “colleges could use some, but not all, of the services offered”? To give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he’s referring to the services within the Outcomes Solution, else I’ve been misinformed, or we’re not getting the whole story. The price is high, true, but only because of how it is packaged.

    I think it’s a good thing that Blackboard joined the party, if only to confirm that the need for an institutional assessment system is increasingly relevant. But let the buyer beware. Blackboard is a late arrival and there are other very good products out worth investigation. If our experience with re-affirmation for accreditation is any measure, the “acceptable” method for tracking assessment is a moving target, which means the assessment tools will need to be flexible and as inexpensive as possible if they want to attract customers who regularly assess the value of their IT solutions. What qualifies today as an application’s strength may be judged tomorrow as an application’s weakness.

  • Posted by Gigi Devanney , Director of Partnership Services at Chalk & Wire on January 19, 2007 at 2:25pm EST
  • I read with great interest your recent article about Blackboard’s new venture into the assessment market.

    Chalk & Wire has been active in this field since 1996 and developed the first electronic assessable eportfolio. We have grown and expanded over the years and now provide eportfolio and assessment services to hundreds of institutions. We attribute our success to a commitment to listening to the needs and wants of our users and by providing customizable and easy-to-use tools as well as professional expertise. We build an average of one hundred thirty new features and enhancements annually, most of which arise from suggestions and requests from our users. WE consider our users our research and development partners, therefore our products get better the more people use them.

    We know that there is more to successful and significant assessment than software tools. To be successful over the long-term, assessment must be meaningful – to both the institution and the student. As proof our work supports that concept, our partners have won recognition in their accreditation pursuit as well as national awards ( http://webapps.oru.edu/alumniweb/news/allstories.php?site=oru&id=122 ) for their assessment programs.

    There is no manual that can cover the needs of all institutions looking to ramp up their assessment, reporting and performance analysis activity. We work to address the unique culture of each organization to offer solutions to change issues (organizational dynamics) as well as practical, research-based approaches to assessment system design to achieve institutional and learner goals. We do not measure various performances in isolation, nor try to create connections where there are none. Nor do we provide a report card for institutions. What we do is to make it possible to have an informed discussion, with academic integrity, about the learning taking place. Chalk & Wire tools assist our users in monitoring and verifying learning -- which is why our partner institutions have a reputation for doing quite well in the accreditation process.

    We are a privately held company and service no debt. While this may not be important to some, in practical terms it means that we can spend our time and efforts improving our tools and walking hand-in-hand with our users as they develop or refine their assessment program, rather than pleasing our investors. Our goal is not to become the largest provider of this type of service, but quite simply, the most trusted. We do what we say we do. It also means that we don’t spend a king’s ransom on marketing or public relations, but rely more heavily on the word of mouth of our users. Due to this, therefore, we realize that we may indeed fly under the radar of journalists.

    I appreciate the attention to the growing field of assessment and hope the Inside HigherEd will continue to investigate both the challenges and solutions facing institutions in this arena. While Blackboard may be the largest player in this game, its size may also be its most significant characteristic. I am sure that if faculty and institutional researchers embark on a thoughtful and comprehensive review of the tools and services available today, Blackboard will end up quite far from the top of the list.

  • RETRACTION of TK20 statement
  • Posted by Matt Braaten , Dir. Web Communications at Lander University on March 27, 2007 at 4:40pm EDT
  • It was brought to my attention (thank you) that TK20 is not "bust," as I stated above in my post, and is, in fact, still providing quotes to customers. I can't remember where I heard that they were, and can't find any reference to it in my files, hence my retraction.