News

Assessment Is Widespread

April 28, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Remember all of that talk from the Spellings Commission about how American colleges were in danger of decline because they didn't assess learning outcomes and didn't even know the learning outcomes they favored? A study being released today by the Association of American Colleges and Universities finds that in fact assessment has been well accepted for years at most colleges, and is widespread, complete with learning outcomes.

What isn't widespread and should be, the study says, is communication with students about curricular goals and how the colleges measure them. And what also isn't widespread (and this doesn't bother many of those surveyed) are national comparisons. Much of the activity on assessment and learning outcomes takes place at the departmental level, the survey found.

AAC&U's survey was of chief academic officers at its member institutions, and 433 responded -- from colleges that are public and private, large and small, two- and four-year.

Among the key findings:

78 percent reported having a "common set of intended learning outcomes" for all undergraduates. These included such skills as writing, critical thinking, quantitative reasoning, oral communication, intercultural skills and so forth. Knowledge areas are also frequently cited and include humanities, social sciences, mathematics and global culture.
72 percent are assessing learning outcomes across the curriculum, and most that don't already do so plan to begin soon.
Most assessment goes on at the departmental level, although almost half of colleges assess in some way at both the departmental level and in general education.
A variety of measures -- many of them specific to departments or even to individual students -- are used in assessment. More than one third of colleges report using "capstone" projects -- designed to sum up an academic program -- or student surveys.
E-portfolios are gaining in popularity, with 57 percent of colleges using them in some form, but only 42 percent report that they are part of assessment efforts.
The percentages of colleges reporting the use of standardized tests of general knowledge and general skills are low -- 16 percent and 26 percent respectively.
Only 5 percent of those surveyed said that they thought all students understood the intended learning outcomes. And when the bar for answering that question in the affirmative is lowered -- to only a majority of students -- the figure goes up, but only to 37 percent.

Carol Geary Schneider, president of the association, said that the data show an "emerging consensus" in higher education that learning outcomes matter, that assessment matters, and that national comparisons are not quite as important.

Given all the debate about assessment in the past few years, prompted by the Spellings Commission and others, Schneider said it was important "to learn what was happening and what wasn't, to see how

Interested in this topic?
For highlights of Inside Higher Ed's coverage,
visit our In Focus: Assessment and Accountability
page.

widespread the reforms are, to see what the approach to assessment is." While Schneider said that it has been clear for some time that colleges take assessment seriously, she said that "we wanted to probe the depth and breadth" of what is taking place.

Asked how the Spellings Commission could have devoted so much time to an alleged lack of assessment in higher education, Schneider said that there was "a willful editing out" of information. "The Bush administration did not want to know what was going on. They wanted to argue that radical surgery was needed."

At the same time, Schneider acknowledged that the assessment documented by the survey doesn't fit into the nationally comparable data sought by the Bush administration. "What's most interesting is how much is going on at the departmental level," she said. "But because it's at the departmental level, there couldn't be one test that would capture everything."

While Schneider said she was generally encouraged by the findings, she said it bothered her that so few colleges feel that their students understand learning outcomes and assessment. That should be a major focus in the years ahead, she said. "Students need to know that there are important goals for their college learning, and our members have a long way to go on that one."

Similarly, she said colleges need to reach out more to elementary and secondary schools, so that the K-12 and higher ed systems collaborate on curricular goals and promote them throughout a student's education.

AAC&U has for years encouraged colleges to focus on assessment and learning outcomes. Asked if that might make the results of the survey unrepresentative of higher education as a whole, Schneider noted that the group has more than 1,150 members. "It is a big organization and a microcosm of higher education," she said.

— Scott Jaschik

Go to comments (9) »

Get Hired!

See all postings »

Matching Jobs

Most Popular

Comments on Assessment Is Widespread

Assessment Found to Be Widespread
Posted by Tim Birtwistle , Leeds Law School at Leeds Metropolitan University on April 28, 2009 at 6:30am EDT
The notion of the importance of learning outcomes, the effect this has on pedagogy and the resulting assessment of the students as well as the earlier stages of curriculum design is well founded in the Bologna Process and the Tuning Process linked to that (in 46 European states on a voluntary basis with great faculty drive, involvement and dedication). As has been reported (and commented upon) in these pages the Tuning USA Project clearly engages the faculty as well as students, graduates and employers. However, it is a faculty driven process and across Europe, Latin America and other parts of the world has found favour.

They have them...but do they use them?
Posted by Sean McKitrick , Assistant Provost at Binghamton University (SUNY) on April 28, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
I am not sure I am too encouraged by the AAC&U survey. Certainly, the results indicate that universities and colleges are collecting information and have defined student learning outcomes, but the results do not indicate that these institutions are using assessment information to improve student learning, are looping assessment information into strategic and budgetary planning. And, after ten years to prodding, only 80% are actually getting around to assessing university-wide outcomes (I assume general education)?
I guess kudos should go to those who have endeavored to define student learning outcomes, but it seems to me that it is still a long, hard slog to get many programs and departments to read through assessment information, consider what they say about student learning, and then do something about what they assessments say about student learning. I am grateful for the many departments at program and department levels at my institution that have worked hard to use assessment information to improve student learning, but I am actually surprised that AACU's number is so low, given accreditors' push toward institutions and programs doing something with the assessment information they have, as opposed to collecting survey data, putting the data in a file folder, and waiting for the next accreditation visit to come down the pike.

Exactly the point
Posted by SB on April 28, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
If assessment is so widespread, why hasn't it been widely adopted across institutions in a comprehensive, integrated manner? And why can't we still answer the question about what a baccalaureate degree actually represents? (What's the difference between a bachelor's degree in psychology from the University of Michigan vs. a bachelor's degree in psychology from the University of New Hampshire?) And why don't we hold institutions accountable for successfully facilitating those desired learning outcomes?
BYU has a good model of sharing the learning outcomes from each of its academic programs publicly. But the next critical steps are to make sure that all curricula are aligned with those stated outcomes and to make institutions accountable for ensuring that those outcomes are met.
Without making a direct alignment between learning outcomes and curricula, the "common set of intended learning outcomes for all undergraduates" remains nothing but that: a laundry wishlist of things they hope their students get out of their 4+ years in college.

Standardization and diversity
Posted by Merilee Griffin on April 28, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
It is encouraging that so many departments have instituted assessments. That is where assessment belongs - in departments and programs where faculty have the expertise to delineate learning outcomes that comprehensively and accurate reflect their missions and the needs of their students.
The next step is for departments and programs to begin sharing their stated outcomes and assessments with each other. Collaborative work on assessment (online, of course - no long meetings) will produce a widening, deepening, and sharpening of both outcomes and assessments. The associations of academic disciplines and accrediting agencies could both be helpful in facilitating this process, similar to the Bologna tuning.
That does mean, however, that everyone should work toward a uniform, standardized national curriculum. To preserve the great diversity of institutional missions and student demographics served, departments should have the authority to decide which departments from other institutions are good fits and which are different. The end goal would be several sets of national standards rather than a single set, with each department or program finding the best "league to play in.' The common building and sharing of assessments, however, would result in the standards being clarified and made transparent to all, including the students who most need to understand them.

Why "assessment" isn't implemented
Posted by James A Francis , Assoc. Prof and Director, Division of Classics at University of Kentucky on April 28, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
Assessment is, in fact, not "widely accepted" by the faculties of US universities, and that is why it has not been more completely implemented. In most schools, assessment protocols are simply imposed by the administration, mostly upon the demand of accrediting agencies. Few faculty believe assessment to be anything more that the latest trend in educationese mumbo-jumbo. Just because an institution has outcomes and assessment protocols doesn't mean they believe in them or use them. In most cases, we are simply jumping through hoops because we're told to do so, and because we think this will make bureaucrats and politicians happy. Most faculty I know regard all this as unproductive nonesense, and I certaily wouldn't pollute my students minds with it.

Integrated outcomes
Posted by Jon Paulson , Faculty/Undergraduate Studies at Walden University on April 28, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
My observation is that in many cases, assessment and even learning outcomes are "tacked on" to existing curricula. The full cycle of curriculum and course design, execution, assessment and adaptation needs to begin with objectives for which both students and faculty share responsibility. Folks used to think that I was kidding when I would argue that students and faculty should learn the institutional outcomes like a catechism, and experience them at an epistemic level, so that the outcomes become a touchstone for what happens in the learning process. Ultimately, both students and faculty would be "assessing" as they listen, read, speak and write so that assessment becomes a part of affective learning rather than simply measurement of advanced cognitive learning.
The fundamental problem with the politicizing and industrializing of the assessment process is that the outcomes become reduced to operational definitions, which become further reduced to charts and graphs that are simplistic enough to be explained to those outside of the learning community. Assessment has to be more than measurement. Right now, the processes is like determining the value of Major League Baseball according to aggregated player and team statistics, and ultimately holding players and coaches to a national standard while ignoring the whole purpose and spirit of the game.

Re: The Problem with Assessment
Posted by Peter C. Herman , Professor of English Literature at San Diego State University on April 28, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
I certainly agree with James A. Francis that assessment (at least in my experience) is widely considered a burden imposed on faculty, and not because faculty are uninterested in teaching well. Rather, assessment seems to be premised on the assumption that faculty are the only responsible agents in the classroom. None of the pro-assessment articles or presentations I have seen on IHE and elsewhere take into account the fact that college students are all adults (legally, at least) and thus are as responsible for their education as the professor. One can create all the interactive educational miracles one wants, but if the student does not do the reading or the required work, then nothing is going to happen, and that nothing is not the professor's fault.

why is there a difference?
Posted by tom abeles , editor at on the horizon on April 28, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
why are there differential admissions requirements among post secondary institutions?
why do recruiters seek employees from different universities?
There is a difference, not just in the institutions, qua institutions, but even in the same courses offered in different institutions. There is a difference in choice during faculty hiring as well as in all who are part of the campus. And graduation/promotion-tenure and other "certification issues are known, accepted and not widely laid on the table- a factor recognized in these certification controversies
Why do large public universities cringe when legislators mandate that community college credits transfer as equal, or that they have to certify secondary school courses equivalent to university courses? Why is there concern that 2 year colleges issue bachelor degrees?
What happens when third parties certify courses, students and even faculty and institutions as being "certified", meaning equivalent when we know that they are not.
When we learned, pre school, we were not in lock-step, age-promoted, cohorts. When we go into the world, outside academia, we, again, learn differently. All the discussion on certification and standards are control mechanisms to maintain an institution which is under severe pressure to change.

KNOWLEDGE SURVEYS -> IMPROVED LEARNING
Posted by David Cleveland , Professor Emeritus (Sociology) - Part Time Assessment Researcher at University of Hawaii - Honolulu Community College on April 28, 2009 at 6:15pm EDT
Dr. Ed Nuhfer (California State University - Channel Islands) has worked extensively in the development of Knowledge Surveys that cause the faculty member to develop clear, chrological expected student learning outcomes and then conduct pre and post-tests on student confidence to demonstrate these skills.
After attending one of his workshops, I began utilizing Knowledge Surveys in Honolulu C.C. classes. Faculty were able to efficiently plot student learning gains (value added) and, more importantly receive clear reports of reported strengths and weaknesses. Using these assessment data, faculty have refocused efforts to improve learning outcomes.
We evolved the process to focus more broadly on multi-section classes to provide faculty and coordinators with reports that allowed the group of educators to discuss strategies to improve learning outcomes.
We then added "discipline" level items as general education area fulfilling courses are supposed to contribute to broader learning outcomes associated with the "discipline" - e.g., a Sociology class is supposed to meet Social Science general education hallmarks.
Now we have added a group of even broader general education skills to reveal the degree to which classes contribute to the general education outcomes associated with the Associate of Arts degree. The resulting reports facilitate "mapping" outcomes of a class with general education expectations.
We include Knowledge Survey items on "Focus" requiremnent fulfilling courses (Writing Intensive, Oral Communication, Hawaiian/Asian/Pacific, Ethics) that provide faculty and program coordinators with insights about the degree to which students are meeting these focus area expectations.
Using Knowledge Survey findings, we are also able to compare learning outcomes in courses with different delivery systems (traditional classes, forms of distance education, and accelerated).
Finally, for the past three years, we have included the general education Knowledge Survey items on the "about to graduate" survey.
Faculty who receive statistical and, more importantly, graphic Knowledge Survey reports have been surveyed and report that the process is efficient, and the findings are useful, have resulted in instructional modifications, and led to improved student learning outcomes.
In conclusion, UH-HCC faculty have found this form of assessment to be a relatively painless way to assist in meeting the Accreditation assessment expectations, but, more importantly, have discovered that the use of Knowledge Surveys has improved learning.
Anyone interested in the technique should contact my Knowledge Survey mentor:
Ed Nuhfer
Director of Faculty Development and Professor of Geoscience
Borough of Faculty Development, 1116 Bell Tower
California State University Channel Islands
One University Drive
Camarillo, CA 93012-8599
805/437-8826, FAX 805/437-8554
ed.nuhfer@csuci.edu

Search News