1. PEGGY MAKI, PH.D. EDUCATION CONSULTANT IN ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING PRESENTED AT CCRI SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 Assessment at Three Levels: Institution, Program, and Course or Educational Experience 1

2. Foci Integration of Institution-level Outcomes—Educated Person—into Program-level Outcomes and Course- level or Educational Experience Outcomes Inside and Outside of the Classroom Alignment of Outcomes 2

3. Through Mapping, Articulation of:  Where and How Students Learn and  How You Assess for Institution-level and Program-level Outcomes Development of a 3- 4-Year Assessment Plan that Takes You Through Your Set of Outcomes until Your APR is Due 3

4. Development of Periodic Report Format Submitted to Peer Review Committee That Documents How You Have Changed or Innovated Pedagogy, Curricular Design, Instruction, and Educational Practices and When You Will Re-Assess to Determine the Efficacy of Your Changes Development of Channels to Decision-making, Planning, and Resource Allocation—How the Institution Responds to Improving Student Learning 4

5. Integration of Institution-Level Outcomes: CCRI’s Educated Person Outcomes Institution-level Outcomes (CCRI’s Educated Person Outcome) Program- or Department-level Outcomes (including Educated Person Outcomes) Course Outcomes/ Service Outcomes/ Educational Opportunities Outcomes (including Educated Person Outcomes) 5

6. 21 st Century: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Knowledge Understanding ApplicationAnalysis Evaluation Creativity 6

7. Domains of Learning Cognitive Affective Contexts for Demonstrating Outcomes Psychomotor 7

8. Alignment of Program-level Outcomes with Institution-Level Outcomes Example 1: (Focus on writing and speaking)  Institution Level Outcome: Students demonstrate critical thinking in their their written work and oral presentations across the curriculum and co-curriculum  Program-level Outcome: Students demonstrate critical thinking in a range of representative written documents in theater and a range of oral presentations Example 2: (Focus on Quantitative Reasoning)  Institution-Level Outcome: Students solve problems through quantitative reasoning in their work across the curriculum and co- curriculum.  Program-level Outcome: Students apply quantitative reasoning to a range of social science case studies, critical incidents, and interpretation of research 8

9. Examples Analyze and evaluate philosophical arguments and positions (philosophy) Critical Thinking Write documents for different audiences and purposes that focus on scientific and technical information (chemistry) Writing Critically analyze and evaluate the merit of ideas and arguments (political science) Critical Thinking Evaluate and discuss contemporary social and ethical issues related to biology and medicine (biology) Ethical Awareness 9

10. Purposes of Learning Outcome Statements Orient Students to the College’s and each Program’s Expectations Enable Students to Identify Where and How They Have Learned or Are Learning across the Institution Position Students to Make Connections Between and Among Their Learning Experiences along Their Educational Journey Lead to Collaborative Agreement about Direct and Indirect Methods to Assess Students’ Achievement of Outcomes 10

11. Program- level Outcome Course-level CT Outcome Course Design to Foster Outcome Assignments that Align with Outcome Criteria and Standards of judgment 11

12. Course Outcomes Assessment Methods and Criteria of Judgment Course Alignment for Outcomes Course and Instructional Design or Educational Practices 12

13. Mapping: Where and How Students Learn Helps us determine coherence among our educational practices that enables us, in turn, to design appropriate assessment methods (See sample map) Identifies gaps in learning opportunities that may account for students’ level of achievement Provides a visual representation of students’ journey Helps students make meaning of the journey and hold them accountable for their learning over time Helps students develop their own learning map 13

14. Mapping: How You Assess Direct Methods, Including Some That Provide Descriptive Data about Students’ Meaning- making Processes, Such as “Think Alouds” Indirect Methods, Including Some That Provide Descriptive Data, such as Small Group Instructional Design or SALG Survey Institutional data (course taking patterns, for example) 14

15. Development of a 3-4-Year Assessment Plan Develop a plan over 3-4 years that cycles through your program-level outcomes that also address your institution-level outcomes Present an assessment plan for each year that documents: 15

16.  The set of outcomes you will assess  A collaborative commitment to that set: Syllabi Audit or Curricular Map  Direct and Indirect Methods you will use to assess  Criteria and standards of judgment you apply to student work such as a scoring rubric  Your method of collecting student work and analyzing results  Ways you will engage colleagues in reviewing and acting on assessment results 16

17. Translate that plan into a report format that periodically explains how your collaborative discussion of results has informed your plans to revise or innovate pedagogy, curricular design, instructional design or educational practices across the curriculum. Changing only one course is likely not enough to foster enduring learning. 17

18. Channeling Results and Proposed Changes Develop Communication Channels to Institutional Decision-making, Planning, and Allocation of Resources  Results should be considered in annual and long-range planning  Results may be prioritized by a receiving committee that funnels priorities to the Board 18