|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dialog on classroom assessment surveys
Sitting up bleary eyed with a stack of assessment questionnaires over the Martin Luther King Day weekend, I gelt like I was in a dialog. No, I wasn't talking to myself. (Not quite. Not yet.) I was cranking out SCI's annual report on Classroom Assessment Techniques for the 2004-2005 school year -- finally -- and picking up ideas I can use in my own teaching.
Last year's surveys suggest more instructors used CATs, as classroom assessment is known in the trade, and more instructors used multiple techniques to measure student learning. That's what's recommended in the literature, since any of our present ways of measuring cognitive behavior are flawed, and I think it's encouraging. I think it shows we're changing our organizational culture at SCI, and it gives us something to build on as we keep on improving.
By far the favorite assessment technique in 2004-2005 was the use of pre-tests and/or post tests. Instructors checked boxes on the questionnaire indicting they used "Pre/Post Testing -- Prior knowledge inventory" in 51 classes -- up from 26 the year before. (The number of respondents only increased by two, from 28 to 30, so the increase is largely attrributable to the use of multiple measures.) Those who discussed using both pre- and post-testing in their open-ended questions said they were able to measure what students knew when a course began, compare it to what they know at the end and thus get a rough measure of "value added" or what the students learned during the course. The next most commonly reported technique was the minute paper, in which students write down the clearest and most difficult points at the end of class, up from seven the year before to 30 in 2004-2005.
The discussion of pre- and post-testing was an eye-opener to me. I don't use it in my own classes, although I do inventory my students' prior knowledge. When we taught English 112 as an "intro to lit" course, I used to have my students list their favorite poem, name the most recent poem they'd read and write a page on whether they would rather:
So I've done part of it. But administering pre-/post- test instruments sounds, at least to me, a lot like standardized testing. And I don't trust data that are essentially statistical when I'm dealing with small numbers of people. Accordingly, much of what I read in the open-ended questions on the CATs survey was new to me.
Since the questions were open-ended, I can't quantify the results. (I wouldn't want to anyway, since I can't add 2+2 and get the same answer twice in a row.) But several instructors say they used their pre- and post- tests for planning. An adjunct psychology teacher, for example, gave pre-/post- tests on the 13 chapters in her textbook through the semester. She found that "students were not reading -- thus pre-tests were bing submitted with blanks." So she "discussed [the] issue with students. Then pre-tests were given then as 'take-home' assignments which they brought back the next day." And the scores went up as her students started reading the chapters. More to the point, she adjusted her teaching to put more emphasis on assigned reading. That's what we mean by formative assessment.
In the pedagese language, "formative" assessment is designed to "assess ongoing program/project activity and provide information to improve the project." The other type is "summative" assessment "done at the conclusion of a course or some larger instructional period (e.g., at the end of the program). The purpose is to determine success or to what extent the program/project/course met its goals" ("Glossary"). Instructors at SCI and Benedictine University's campus here said they use pre-/post- tests for both purposes.
Since I'll be teaching an interdisciplinary humanities course in Native American cultural expression for the first time this semester, I was especially interested in longtime humanities teacher Bob Blankenberger's expereince with pre-/post- testing in a Benedictine course covering "current political, economic, cultural and technological challenges." Bob reported it "showed student improvment in non-western topics is weaker than in western ones." Accordingly, he said, "greater emphasis will be placed on non-western [cultures] next spring. I will reduce detail and concentrate on more general information to improve cultural awareness."
That makes sense to me, both in terms of what it suggests about our students in a perhaps not-overwhelmingly-diverse downstate community and Bob's response to it. When Native American issues have come up in my other classes over the years, I've come to realize most young people from Springfield can't go to pow wows, haven't eaten fry bread and don't understand what all the fuss over Chief Illiniwek is about. So it makes a lot of sense to "reduce detail," go slow and keep coming back to general ideas as we explore different cultures. The longer I teach, the more I like to focus on a few general points when I'm introducting new ideas, whether they're integrated marketing communications, journalistic ethics or the joy of using a semicolon correctly. As I said, reading the surveys on classroom assessment at SCI and Benedictine I felt like I was in a dialog.
So, to continue the dialog, thanks, Bob. I've got a better handle on the Native American course from reading your CATs survey.
You, too, can continue the dialog. The 2004-2005 annual report is now on the web. Link <href etc. >here </a> to read it.
"Glossary of Terms." Building the New Learning Environment. Division of Student Affairs, University of Georgia-Athens. n.d. http://www.uga.edu/studentaffairs/assess/glossary.shtml
"Use of Classroom Assessment Techniques, 2004-2005." Springfield College in Illinois. 14 Jan. 2006. http://www.sci.edu/assessment/annualcatreport05.html
Assessment Day Reminder: Please remember to announce to your students: Our annual assessment day is Wednesday, March 29. In order to begin standardized testing in math as part of our mandated assessment program, the Assessment Committee is working on a new schedule. Watch this space and your SCI e-mail account for details as they become available.
-- Pete Ellertsen, chair, Assessment Committee
Nuts & Bolts is an electronic newsletter published by SCI's Assessment Committee. Members are: Bob Blankenberger, humanities and social science; Amy Lakin, languages and literature; Rick Rossetto, life sciences; Steve Stowers, math; Barb Tanzyus, math; Ray Bruzan, chemistry; Brian Carrigan, science; Sr. Anna Izydorczyk, student; 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>.
