|
|
|
|
Institutional and Program Assessment
Assessments that are pitched at the level of a program, a curriculum, or institution are part of a larger complex system that builds on student learning and on a process of student
assessment-as-learning. Institutional and program assessment
has developed as a system of processes that: |
 |
Yield
patterns of student and alumna learning, development, and performance
on a range of educational outcomes. They provide meaningful feedback
to faculty, staff, and various publics for improvement, shared learning,
and demonstrated effectiveness; and |
|
Ensure comparisons to standards (faculty, disciplinary, professional, accrediting,
certifying), and enable evidence-based judgments of how students and
alumnae benefit from the curriculum and college culture.
|
In operation, institutional and program assessments address questions
of educational practice, curriculum planning, and institutional
development, as well as contributing to research and evaluation
activities. In an integrated system, program, curriculum, or institution-wide
assessment can provide significant insights into student learning by:
|
 |
creating
processes that assist faculty, staff, and administrators to improve student learning |
|
conducting
inquiry to judge program value and effectiveness for fostering student learning |
|
generating
multiple sources of feedback to faculty, staff, and administrators
about patterns of student and alumni performance in relation to learning
outcomes that are linked to curriculum and college culture |
|
making
comparisons of student and alumna performance to standards, criteria,
or indicators (faculty, disciplinary, professional, accrediting, certifying,
legislative) to create public dialogue |
|
yielding
evidence-based judgments of how students and alumnae benefit from
the curriculum, co-curriculum, and other learning contexts |
|
guiding
curricular, co-curricular, and institution-wide improvements |
Throughout
the institutional, program, or course assessment process, the dominant
components of student assessment prevail: explicit, public outcomes;
assessment-as-learning; interactive processes; evidence-based judgments;
multiple comparisons to criteria and standards. Self assessment in
relation to criteria and standards is the predominant function; improvement
of the curriculum and demonstration of effectiveness to a range of
audiences—including students and alumnae—the predominant
benefit. Irrespective of who does the assessing and at what level,
this kind of process works best when there is a collective responsibility
for student learning, and a collaborative, interactive learning effort
to self assess the effectiveness of curriculum and culture for student
learning, and for scholarly understanding and continual review of
the learning and assessment principles that undergird education at
the college.
|
Taking a departmental and institutional perspective can call for a variety of approaches, strategies, and processes. These include:
|
|
review
of current theory, scholarship, and practice; |
|
of
general education and the major field; |
|
longitudinal
analysis of changes in student and alumnae abilities, learning, and
development as a result of curriculum and college culture, who changes,
who benefits and why; studying students' and alumnae perspectives
on learning and causal attributions to curriculum and college culture;
studying graduates' career advancement; |
|
studying
the performance of alumnae abilities in work, personal, and civic
roles; and of outstanding professionals who are not Alverno graduates; |
|
practitioner-based
inquiry studies; |
|
validating
the ability-based performance assessment process (student assessment-as-learning);
|
|
making
a case for the value, worth, and effectiveness of the college and curriculum. |
Institutional
and program assessment is a process and system for assessing institutional
or curriculum effectiveness through a study of individual and group
patterns in student/alumna performance over time as a result of curriculum,
and comparing these patterns to diverse criteria from various sources.
This enables a community of judgment to look at student and alumna
perspectives, to reflect on insights about how they learn and continue
to develop, to learn how curriculum contributes to their learning,
and to envision more effective curriculum and supports for learning,
including the learning atmosphere of the college.
|
The
following table illuminates various dimensions of institutional and program assessment.
|
Clarifying Dimensions of Institutional and Program Assessment |
Qualities |
Essential Components of a Process |
Characteristics of a System |
| • |
assessment is a means to achieve educational purposes, not an end in itself
|
| • |
assessment is a means not only to establish accountability but also to achieve educational benefits
|
| • |
assessment's purposes, goals, and methods emerge from the setting and are challenged by the expectations of various publics
|
| • |
assessment encourages multiplicity and diversity
|
| • |
assessment encourages coherence
|
| • |
feedback is the essence of assessment | |
| • |
reliance on broad learning outcomes and principles
|
| • |
determination and definition of explicit criteria, standards, comparisons
|
| • |
focus on curriculum (teaching, learning, assessing performance)
|
| • |
collection and analysis of evidence from student/alumna performance, perceptions, potential
|
| • |
synthesis and interpretation of individual and group patterns
|
| • |
comparison of patterns to diverse criteria, standards
|
| • |
feedback to diverse groups
|
| • |
judgment from diverse sources of expertise, evidence, and stakeholders
|
| • |
shared learning , (about how curriculum enables student learning,) for continuous improvement accountability, understanding
|
Some aspects common across student, program, and institutional assessment:
|
| • |
explicit public outcomes
|
| • |
assessment for the sake of learning
|
| • |
engagement in an interactive process
|
| • |
multiple comparisons to criteria and standards
|
| • |
feedback
|
| • |
evidence-based judgments
|
Some aspects that differentiate institutional and program assessment from student assessment:
|
| • |
breadth of inclusion of learning outcomes and what is measured and judged
|
| • |
"standing beside" and "standing aside" as primary, and "standing in" as secondary
|
| • |
validation of learning principles and assessment processes
|
| • |
group as well as individual patterns
|
| • |
linking outcomes to curriculum
|
| • |
sampling, but with individual feedback
|
| • |
diverse, multiple comparisons at every level of analysis
| |
| • |
concerned with assessment of the observable and ineffable outcomes of education: abilities, learning, development, performance
|
| • |
connected with teaching, learning, and student assessment, the crown jewel of institutional and program assessment
|
| • |
philosophically and conceptually grounded
|
| • |
theory-driven and practice-based; purposeful and problem-based
|
| • |
diverse purposes, questions, and methods coherent with dynamic educational context
|
| • |
interactive and collaborative processes, institutionalized structures that are dynamic and systematic
|
| • |
individual participation in an institutionalized system
|
| • |
multiple purposes
|
| • |
multiple stakeholders and audiences
|
| • |
multiple modes of inquiry from diverse perspectives and disciplines
|
| • |
multiple sources of evidence
|
| • |
triangulated designs with external comparisons
|
| • |
enables interdisciplinary perspective-taking, reflection, learning, envisioning
|
| |
— |
a recursive recycling system
|
| |
— |
a heuristic for discovery
|
| |
— |
a means to improvement
|
| |
— |
a system for validation
|
| |
— |
a system for confirmation and challenge
|
| |
— |
a support for transformation
|
| • |
a support for a community of learning and judgment across levels: student, course, program, institution, various publics
|
| • |
developmental
|
| |
— |
encourages depth within levels and breadth across levels
|
| |
— |
cumulative, across data sources, across levels
|
| • |
public criteria and comparisons to enable a community to engage in evidence-based judgment
| | |
Excerpted from: Mentkowski, M. (1991a.). Creating a context where institutional
assessment yields educational improvement. Journal of General Education,
40, 255-283. Mentkowski, M., for the Alverno College Office of Research
and Evaluation and the Research and Evaluation Council. (1994, April).
Institutional and program assessment at Alverno College. In W. Rickards
(Chair), Institutional assessment across the educational spectrum. Paper
presented at a symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Milwaukee, WI: Alverno
College Institute.
|
|
|
|
