Search

According to the authors, to infuse equity truly in assessment requires that students be actively involved in the process of assessing their own learning. Equitable assessment argues that students can demonstrate attainment of learning outcomes in many ways, and in any particular instance of assessment, students can be offered multiple ways to demonstrate learning. Equitable assessment requires interrogation of student learning data coupled with intentional examination of assumptions on how and where students learn. The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment supported space for exploring the relationship between equity and assessment of student learning with a variety of resources. In this article, they provide a framework for students and culture in assessment designed to ensure the practice and process of assessment itself became more culturally responsive. To do such work, the framework proposed that faculty and staff do the following: (1) take into account the student population served by the institution in the design of assessment approaches; (2) use language that is appropriate for all students when developing learning outcomes, such that the learning outcomes have meaning to students and not just the faculty and staff that wrote them; (3) develop and/or use assessments that are appropriate for different students whether through assignment design or alternative approaches to traditional assessments; and (4) disaggregate and interrogate assessment results and assumptions about changes that faculty and staff believe may lead to improvements in student learning.

A long-standing purpose of assessment is to help faculty improve student learning; unfortunately, evidence of improved learning is rare. Learning improvement evidence in its most simple form requires practitioners to assess, intervene, and re-assess a student learning outcome. Of course, achieving evidence of learning improvement is not so simple. Technically, assessment expertise is needed to assist with the assess and re-assess components of the model and pedagogical and curricular expertise is needed for the intervene part. Involvement, however, is not limited to faculty within a program, department, area, unit, etc. Other stakeholders and leaders are often involved, such as department heads and other administrators, assessment practitioners, educational developers, industry experts, students, alumni, etc. Coordinating such a diverse group towards a common improvement goal requires a new type of skillset. A practitioner who develops this skillset is considered a "Learning Improvement Facilitator" (LIF). LIFs possess excellent facilitation skills and are attuned to group dynamics, organizational nuances, and interpersonal communication. That is, the LIF analyzes and accounts for "situational factors" related to learning improvement projects. Situational factors are variables that influence one's environment (e.g., the environment in which a learning improvement project is being implemented). Fink (2013) discusses situational factors as the first step of "integrated course design" (p. 68). Based on Fink's work, the authors explore organizational culture, leadership, and faculty experiences--as situational factors--related to learning improvement projects. LIFs consider such situational factors prior to facilitating learning improvement projects.

The article "Assessment in the United States: Pathways Forward" discusses emerging assessment trends in higher education. The role of accreditation, program theory, and implementation fidelity, as well as student voice, are highlighted as crucial aspects of assessment. The authors emphasize the importance of involving students in the assessment process to create a more inclusive and effective educational environment. The article suggests that advancements in assessment can be supported by a dynamic accreditation system that encourages innovative practices in higher education. [Extracted from the article]

Through the case example of the Learning Recognition Collaborative, this article examines possible connections between Essential Learning Outcomes, prior-learning assessment, and equity in learning for today's students.

The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment's (NILOA's) online library of faculty-created assignments that both produce and demonstrate learning makes pedagogical work visible and available for colleagues to learn from, build on, and reward. This online library allows faculty to collaborate in sharing, critiquing, and improving assignments for submission to the NILOA Assignment Library. The assignments in the collection demonstrate what is possible, stimulate further design efforts, and build a community of expert judgment around such work. Faculty use an "assignment template" that identifies the critical elements of an assignment: that it specify the central task and indicate how it is to be undertaken and the results communicated, as well as how extensive or evidential the response should be. In good assignment design, high-level outcomes are translated into concrete terms. This work can be undertaken both on individual campuses (thereby building a culture of pedagogical improvement and inquiry) and between campuses.

The expectation for accountability is legitimate. In order to have the desired effects, evidence of what students know and can do must respond to genuine institutional needs and priorities. Far too often, that condition is not met. On too many campuses, assessment activity is mired in a culture of compliance rather than driven by collective concern about student performance or an ethos of "positive restlessness," where information about student learning outcomes helps answer questions of real significance to faculty, staff, and students. The imperative to "make assessment matter," needs to be understood in the context of the changing environment of post secondary education. This article details five well established trends that underscore why use of evidence of student learning will be so important in the coming years: (1) A major driver of change in American higher education for the foreseeable future will be a harsher, less-forgiving economic environment that will place a greater premium on evidence of what students know and are able to do; (2) Technology-enhanced platforms will provide new and more comprehensive ways to monitor and document student proficiencies; (3) The roles and characteristics of providers and certifiers of learning--be they tenure-line faculty members, adjuncts, professional staff, interactive-software users, or some as-yet "unimaginable other"--will continue to expand; (4) The emergence of more comprehensive and transparent credentialing frameworks will bring more order, meaning, and legitimacy to the escalating numbers of post-secondary credentials--degrees, diplomas, certificates, certifications, licenses, badges, accreditations, and other mechanisms that recognize what students know and can do; and (5) Increasingly, individual students, rather than colleges or universities, are becoming responsible for maintaining a cumulative record of their post-secondary knowledge and proficiencies. The value of assessment can only be measured by the contribution it makes to student success and the degree to which it improves institutional performance. A campus that prioritizes gathering evidence to answer and then address important questions about student learning realizes the double benefit of getting better while also meeting accountability demands. In this way, accountability becomes a natural by-product of assessment, not its driver.

This chapter discusses the role of institutional research in DQP and Tuning work. Examples from the field of the myriad ways in which IR has been involved, as well as an exploration of ways in which IR has yet to be involved, are discussed.

This concluding essay provides a glimpse to the future and alerts IR professionals to related initiatives as well as provides an update to ongoing work with DQP and Tuning. Pulling from the prior chapters it provides some implications for IR offices to consider, not only in their work with the DQP and Tuning, but in terms of general decision support.

This chapter provides a brief overview of the Degree Qualifications Profile and related Tuning process, summarizing lessons learned from institutional engagement with both. The value and purpose for working with each are explored.

Colleges and universities exist within a political arena where external demands for accountability materialize within a market-driven environment. As a result, government agencies pressure colleges and universities to rely on assessment and transparent reporting to become more market-driven assuming that the competition within the market, led by public choice and institutional selection, will drive improvements in learning and will also self-govern the institutions. This article explores how Foucault informs our conception of neoliberal governmentality through political rationality and technologies of self-governance in order to inform our understanding of accountability in higher education and to challenge institutions to develop a counter dialogue which meets institutional obligations to the public and market.

The front cover of the journal is presented along with the issue's editors and information on membership and subscriptions and presents a table of contents of the periodical "Assessment Update" in the January-February 2017 issue.

This chapter provides a brief overview of the Degree Qualifications Profile and related Tuning process, summarizing lessons learned from institutional engagement with both. The value and purpose for working with each are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This chapter discusses the role of institutional research in DQP and Tuning work. Examples from the field of the myriad ways in which IR has been involved, as well as an exploration of ways in which IR has yet to be involved, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This concluding essay provides a glimpse to the future and alerts IR professionals to related initiatives as well as provides an update to ongoing work with DQP and Tuning. Pulling from the prior chapters it provides some implications for IR offices to consider, not only in their work with the DQP and Tuning, but in terms of general decision support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) Principles against the backdrop of the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment's (NILOA) collection of accounts of good assessment practice. Topics discussed include the nine institutional case studies embarked by NILOA, a list of AAHE principles of good practice for assessing student learning, and the use of PRISM online planning infrastructure by the Colorado State University.

Further, the book includes case studies to help readers better understand student-focused learning and assessment for those wanting to foster an institutional student-centered culture that spans learning and assessment. Authors offered thought leadership on student-faculty partnerships and the role of students in teaching and learning. The process of assessing student learning indicates to students what is important to learn and influences students' views of themselves as learners. [Extracted from the article]

In addition to the Sustained Excellence designees, the Excellence in Assessment designees indicate horizontal and vertical alignment of learning outcomes throughout an institution. A brief introduction for East Carolina University, Florida A&M University, Northwestern State University, the University of Florida, and the University of Texas at Arlington are shared below. These achievements, combined with their student success metrics, provide a comprehensive view of student success at UF. [Extracted from the article]

Regarding assessment, there are many points of reflection from COVID-19 to inform future directions, but two in particular are the focus of this piece: the scholarship of assessment and assessment as a profession. Assessment as a Profession The second area of focus is upon the professional competencies needed by assessment professionals coupled with aligned job descriptions to recruit needed talent into the career path. As a profession, we need to think through and identify professional competencies needed for a successful assessment professional - one who may even be capable of leading trauma-informed and healing-centered assessment efforts. [Extracted from the article]

Rarely is it disputed that professional development is an ongoing need for faculty, staff, and even students in order to support meaningful assessment efforts throughout an institution. I Community: i The social dimension of professional learning - faculty, staff, and students collaborating to advance change in pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment. Faculty Development Resources from NILOA The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) offers plentiful resources to support faculty development efforts. [Extracted from the article]

The Excellence in Assessment (EIA) designation recognizes institutions that integrate assessment practices, provide evidence of student learning outcomes to stakeholders, and utilize assessment results to guide institutional decision-making and improve student performance. Further, the EIA focus on institution-level assessment allows us to shine a light on the areas of greatest disconnect and discontent - institution-level assessment processes and practices and improving student learning. The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA), established in 2008, is a research and resource-development organization, dedicated to documenting, advocating, and facilitating the systematic use of learning outcomes assessment to improve student learning. [Extracted from the article]