Assessment

Assessment

Victoria Acevedo

CCHE 687

Dr. King

December 8, 2016
 Assessment 2

The goal of any institution of higher education should be to continuously improve

the education provided to students. To make improvements, it is important to decipher

what is effective or ineffective in the student learning experience. Assessing student

learning may require both direct and indirect measures (VanDerLinden, 2016). Direct

measures of student learning provide compelling evidence that learning outcomes were

achieved while indirect measures show signs that students may have learned but the

evidence is less convincing (VanDerLinden, 2016). After reviewing the Northern Arizona

University [NAU] Course Evaluation structure, it appears NAU would benefit from

improving the questions on course evaluations to obtain more qualitative information and

direct evidence of learning (NAU, 2013). Along with grades and course evaluations,

colleges and departments could use focus groups and rubrics to gauge the learning

students are engaging in.

In higher education, assessment of learning outcomes requires gathering

information from multiple sources and using the results to improve student learning

(VanDerLinden, 2016). Currently, in higher education, assessment is used for both

external demands of accountability (accreditation) and internal commitments to

improvement (Keeling, Wall, Underhile, & Dungy, 2008). While it is important to meet

accreditation standards, perhaps a stronger driving force for assessment in institutions of

higher education should be to continually improve students education. Assessment

measures created without faculty input can create institutional problems. Therefore,

institutions that are able to explain the benefits of assessment and involve faculty in the

creation and implementation of it may have less pushback from faculty regarding
 Assessment 3

assessment measures (Perrine, Sweet, Blythe, Kopacz, Combs, Bennett, Street, & Keeley,

2010).

Grades and course evaluations are frequently used to assess student learning.

However, grades and course evaluations are indirect measures of assessment. A grade can

be used as a sign that a student has learned something but we, as educators, do not know

for sure what they learned (VanDerLinden, 2016). The grade does not allow us to

determine the strengths and weaknesses of a students performance (Perrine et al., 2010).

In other words, whether a student earns an A or a C, these grades do not provide

tangible evidence of what the student has learned as a result of his/her participation in a

course.

Because course evaluations are self-reports of student learning and may be biased,

they are considered to be an indirect measure of assessment (Bowman, 2013). Student

opinion is valuable in some assessment practices. Nevertheless, at NAU, it would be

beneficial to get deeper information from students regarding why they respond a certain

way in course evaluations. If course evaluations pose appropriate questions, they can be a

meaningful and useful tool for faculty, departments, and colleges within an institution to

improve curriculum accordingly.

To ensure continuous planning and improvement within higher education,

concrete information about performance is essential (Bresciani, Gardner, & Hickmott,

2009). With the 2013 format of NAU course evaluations, all responses are indicated by a

four-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree (NAU, 2013). The answers

to these questions would be informative but superficial. If the course evaluations offered

students the opportunity to freely write responses, the results of the evaluations could be
 Assessment 4

more telling of the occurrence of student learning. Open-ended questions do not lead

individuals to certain responses, but allow them to describe their experiences, which

could provide rich, detailed information on what students did or did not learn and why

(Schuh, Upcraft, & Associates, 2001).

Questions on NAU course evaluations such as, tell us about what was helpful (or

not) in your learning experiences in this course or describe what would be useful in

helping students learn the material for this course could be very beneficial. These

questions would allow students to explain what they feel are their strengths or

weaknesses as students. Similarly, these questions will allow students to explain the

strength and weaknesses of the curriculum and assist in improvement efforts. This

information would fulfill the Higher Learning Commissions [HLC] expectation of

institutions to provide evidence the institution assesses learning outcomes (Higher

Learning Commission, 2016). Furthermore, the information must be used to make

improvements (Higher Learning Commission, 2016).

According to Bresciani, Zelna, and Anderson (2004), qualitative assessment

measures are excellent for gathering rich detail and deeper understanding of survey data.

The 2013 NAU Course Evaluations provided quantitative data because ordinal scales

were used to measure student responses (Schuh et al., 2001). Conducting focus groups of

students who participated in course evaluations would provide a qualitative explanation

to the quantitative data from the evaluations. Therefore, focus groups would make the use

of course evaluations in student assessment more comprehensive.

Using purposeful, stratified sampling for focus groups would provide important

information on student responses to course evaluations (Bresciani et al., 2004). The

 Assessment 5

stratified samples would consist of subgroups of the population who completed and

submitted course evaluations. Several focus groups of 6 to 10 students would be created.

The students would participate in semi-structured interviews to learn the reasons behind

their responses in the evaluations. Interviews would be conducted until saturation is

achieved (Bresciani et al., 2004). Themes and trends would be discovered during the

analysis of results (Schuh et al., 2001), and rubrics could be used to measure whether a

department was successful in achieving its learning outcomes. Rubrics assist in the

triangulation of data when used with surveys (Levy, McKelfresh, & Donavan, 2012).

Therefore, the rubrics would provide a direct measurement of assessment.

The sole use of grades and course evaluations should no longer be an acceptable

method of assessment at Northern Arizona University. There should be a process able to

establish clear learning outcomes and evidence that evaluation of learning outcomes has

been conducted (Bresciani et al., 2009). This information must be used to improve

programs. Patrick Callan said, It is an embarrassment that we can tell people anything

about education except how well students are learning (VanDerLinden, 2016). NAU

should strive to utilize effective assessment measures to gauge and improve student

learning.
 Assessment 6

References

Bowman, N. (2013). Understanding and addressing the challenges of assessing college

student learning in student affairs. Retrieved from:

http://www.rpajournal.com/dev/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SF1.pdf

Bresciani, M., Zelna, C., & Anderson, J. (2004). Assessing student learning and

Development: A handbook for practitioners. Washington, D.C.: NASPA-Student

Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Bresciani, M. J., Gardner, M. M., & Hickmott, J. (2009). Demonstrating Student Success:

A Practical Guide to Outcomes-Based Assessment of Learning and Development

in Student Affairs. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Higher Learning Commission [HLC]. (2016). The criteria for accreditation and core

components. Retrieved December 3, 2016, from

https://www.hlcommission.org/Criteria-Eligibility-and-Candidacy/criteria-and-

core-components.html

Keeling, R. P., Wall, A. F., Underhile, R., & Dungy, G. J. (2008). Assessment

reconsidered: Institutional effectiveness for student success. Washington, D.C.:

Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

Levy, J. D., McKelfresh, D. A., & Donavan, J. A. (2012). A scale for success. Talking

Stick, 29 (3), 28-49.

Northern Arizona University [NAU]. (2013). Fall 2013: NAU course evaluation.

Retrieved December 2, 2016, from https://bblearn.nau.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-

4383285-dt-content-rid-36653456_1/courses/1167-NAU00-CCHE-687-SEC001-

7017.NAU-
 Assessment 7

PSSIS/FALL%202013%20NAU%20Course%20Eval%20Questions%282%29.pd

Perrine, R., Sweet, C., Blythe, H., Kopacz, P., Combs, D., Bennett, O., Street, S., &

Keeley, E.J. (2010). From bereavement to assessment: The transformation of a

regional comprehensive university. In P. Macki (Ed.), Coming to Terms with

Student Outcomes Assessment. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus.

Schuh, J., Upcraft, M. L., & Associates (2001). Assessment practice in student affairs:

An applications manual. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

VanDerLinden, K. (2016). Type of assessment in higher education part II. [Power Point].

Retrieved November 7, 2016, from https://bblearn.nau.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-

4383249-dt-content-rid-36653476_1/courses/1167-NAU00-CCHE-687-SEC001-

7017.NAU-PSSIS/Module%203_Learning%20Outcomes%20Assessment.mp4