Two Principles of Effective Assessment David Bushman David Rehm Mount St. Marys University Emmitsburg, Maryland

Engage in a discussion with others about assessment Be as interactive as possible We dont want to present a complete picture but instead wish to share our experiences Aim of this Presentation

What has been the primary driver to get faculty on board with assessment? How successful have you been? How much top-down energy has been required? What kind of energy has been most useful? Describe the sustainability of your efforts. Where are you with assessment?

Responses?

First assessment plan written in 2001 Approved by the faculty after lengthy deliberation Established an Assessment Committee Role: not police but support Reviews assessment activities of each department Engages in conversation with department chairs and program heads The Mount: Context (1)

Assessment Works at Various Levels: Core Programs Major Programs (including 5 year external reviews) Overall Core Program (Utilized ) Overall Undergraduate Program The Mount: Context (2)

Within 5 years, almost all departments and programs were engaging in assessment of student learning – at the various levels referred to Tended to use the same instrument a number of times Less attention paid to developing a 5-year plan and mapping out how all the goals of the program would be met in that period The Mount: Context (3)

Also were not as attentive as we could be to documenting sufficiently how improvements were made based on what was learned. (We identified results, ways to improve, and what we intended to do; not sufficient follow-up after that.) The Mount: Context (4)

We believe we met with some success; it is based on 2 principles

Separate judgments about process from judgments about content When this got started, deep concern that assessment would be used as a wedge or hammer to drive curricular changes Have convinced folks that assessment is an opportunity to reflect on how to improve (without concern about elimination of programs) Learned that a realization about a problem in a program does not lead to a conclusion about whether to run that program Principle #1: Appropriate Boundaries

This requires Trust Appreciation for what assessment can and cannot do (limits in precision) Appreciation for what assessment should and should not do (kinds of judgments we make on the basis of what we learn – e.g., align goals and practice) Principle #1: Appropriate Boundaries

In order to empower faculty (and administrative offices) to do this work: Establish academic and administrative assessment committees Focus on process: make sure that programs and offices complete the process Provide support/aid to all interested parties Engage in extensive conversation to facilitate understanding Principle #2: Empowerment

This requires: A ton of patience and time Senior leadership buy-in Significant coordination Principle #2: Empowerment

In what ways are these two principles in play on your campus? In what ways do these principles resonate with your experiences?

Dont brow-beat the faculty. Instead, engage in discussions with all department chairs, program heads, and administrative heads. Highlight the work of departments and programs that are doing a good job. Have them present to chairs and program heads at meetings and in other contexts. Recommendations

Further Recommendations?