|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When we jump-started SCI's assessment program in the 2000-2001 school year, we pledged to work toward a "culture of assessment." At the time, it seemed like tilting at windmills. But now I think the evidence is in to demonstrate our organizational culture is beginning to encourage and reward the use of multiple measures of student learning to gauge how well we carry out our stated mission of "prepar[ing] students for a life of learning, leadership and service in a diverse world."
To provide a context for assessment, we've worked hard over the years to phase in what assessment maven Cecilia L. López of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools calls "clearly stated goals for all academic programs" that are reflected in "explicit objectives for student learning derived from those goals that are publicly stated and linked to specific measures" ("Opportunities"). In other words, we've been tying the goals in SCI's mission statement to classroom instruction, and we've been doing assessment to see how well we carry them out.
So assessment isn't just busywork, and it builds on things that have been going on a long time at SCI. I remember hearing about linking classroom objectives to the mission statement at my first faculty meeting in August 1995, and we're still at it. We've had a few ups and downs since then, but the Common Student Learning Objectives and Course-Based Student Learning Objectives we incorporated into our syllabus format this semester are a continuation of the same emphasis. And after reviewing syllabuses from virtually all the full-time and adjunct instructors at SCI in the past month, I can say with some assurance we are all clearly stating our goals in explicit objectives for student learning. That means, to me, we've arrived. We can now say we have a culture of assessment.
Or so I thought until I tried to explain the new syllabus format in my classes. We may have a culture of assessment, but we also have a challenge in explaining it to our students.
Here's how it went: My night students, who are taking introductory public relations in the New Horizons program, saw immediately how we're using the mission statement as a framework for measurable goals in the classroom. As adult learners they're used to planning for continuous improvement, benchmarking and accountability to internal and external stakeholders. Several spoke of their mission statements at work, and a couple of them hauled out wallet-sized copies they were carrying with them. From the syllabus, we segued right into a discussion of how mission and strategic planning enter into the public relations process. It was a valuable teaching moment.
But as soon as I mentioned the CSLOs to my freshman English students in the traditional program, their eyes glazed over.
The longer I talked, the worse it got. Debi and I have a cat at home who we suspect is a graduate of Springfield's feral kitten trapping program, and I've encountered less resistance pilling the cat than I did trying to explain the difference between a CSLO and a CBSLO to the freshmen in my daytime classes. I didn't need to administer a Classroom Assessment Technique to decide I'd better drop it -- fast -- and try again later from another angle.
We discussed it in this month's Assessment Committee meeting, and I've talked it over with other instructors. Nobody I talked with felt satisfied with their performance. The upshot is clear: I think it's important for us to explain assessment to our students, but it's going to be a hard sell with traditional students who are just out of high school. To the extent they're aware of assessment, as far as I can tell after talking with several students, they tend to associate it with state-mandated standardized testing and the federal No Child Left Behind law. Since their attitudes about standardized testing already range from ambivalent to hostile, I'd say we've got our work cut out for us.
But then there was that night school class where things went right. What happened there? I've thought a lot about it, and I think the difference was the New Horizon students had a frame of reference the traditional students haven't yet attained. So I interpret my job, at least a large part of it, as relating assessment to the life experiences of a recent high school graduate going on to college.
I'll be candid: I haven't figured it all out yet. I want to talk with more traditional students, for one thing, and try to get a better handle on their experience and their expectations. I need to review the literature, too.
But in the meantime, here's one thing I've learned: When I do classroom assessment, students are usually receptive to the idea their comments help me focus on their expressed needs -- as long as I follow through, of course, and do what I said I'd do. My reading of the literature tells me formative assessment is part of the shared experience they bring to us from high school, in other words, and it's something I can build on even if students don't usually recognize the term. Here's another: Like any other learning that takes place in my classroom, assessment is repetitive and recursive. (I wouldn't use the word "repetitious," although I'll admit I have seen it on Muddiest-Point essays.) None of this stuff happens overnight, and none of it is tilting at windmills.
Footnote. In the coverage of the recent destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina, a story by reporter Ann Gerhart of The Washington Post caught my eye. It began:
"NEW ORLEANS, Aug. 31 -- Rochelle Montrel, dedicated middle school teacher, thought she should stay in town to prepare for the first day of classes. 'We have all this testing now, earlier and earlier,' she said Wednesday, 'and I wanted to be ready.'
"Instead, she spent Monday clinging to her roof, and that turned to Tuesday, and then 'the wonderful man' in the helicopter finally swooped in, after 24 hours, and delivered Montrel, her mother, father, sister and the poodle onto the ramp outside the Superdome. They had lived. ..."
The story went on to describe conditions in New Orleans, but I was struck by the reason Montrel stayed in town.
Links and references. Our instructors' guide, "Classroom Assessment for Continuous Improvement," is available on line at http://www.sci.edu/assessment/programgoals/index.html ... and SCI's Self-Study for the NCA site visit in November is available at http://www.sci.edu/accreditation.html. Both are in pdf format. Other sources referenced in this issue of Nuts & Bolts are:
Nuts & Bolts is an electronic newsletter published by SCI's Assessment Committee. Members are: Bob Blankenberger, humanities and social science; Amy Lakin, language and literature; Rick Rossetto, life sciences; Steve Stowers, math; Barb Tanzyus, math; Ray Bruzan, chemistry; Brian Carrigan, science; and Pete Ellertsen (chair), communications and humanities. Kevin Broeckling, dean of students; and John Cicero, academic affairs dean, serve ex officio.
If you have information, comments or feedback, please contact any committee member or Nuts & Bolts editor Pete Ellertsen, in Becker L-16A on the SCI campus, 525-1420 ext. 519 or by e-mail at <pellertsen@sci.edu>.
