| Table of Contents | Gateway Home Page |
|
This article is first of a series that will present how we, at the Gateway Coalition, are developing, implementing, and institutionalizing a comprehensive assessment process in our member institutions. One of the Gateway Coalition�s primary objectives is "to imbed assessment and evaluation, as well as continuous improvement, as a fundamental ingredient of the educational process." There are many driving forces behind such an objective. The push is on for an assessment system that will indicate quality, success or failure in undergraduate engineering education. Prospective students want to know if their investment of four years and perhaps $80,000 is worth the effort. Faculty wants to know if they are teaching the right mix of skills and knowledge.The Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) is pushing college engineering administrators to incorporate sound assessment techniques into their programs. Industry is involved with hiring practices geared toward those who demonstrate the specific competencies they seek. Unless we measure our program results in terms of student learning outcomes, we will undermine our search for the best potential students, peak performing professors, and even accreditation. ABET, for example, has incorporated program outcomes and assessment as key criteria in ENGINEERING CRITERIA 2000. The new criteria clearly state that each program must have an assessment process with documented results. Evidence must be given that the results are applied to the further development and improvement of the program. Finally, the assessment process must demonstrate that the outcomes important to the mission of the institution and the objectives of the program are being measured.
Each engineering college or institution determines how to measure these outcomes and program objectives. However, the ABET Criteria 2000 demands a comprehensive, integrated, consistent, and outcome-driven approach within an individual school. Our answer is comprised of four integrated strategies that together foster the culture required to implement and institutionalize outcome-driven assessment in an educational environment. The four strategies are 1) initiate a structured process to involve faculty and staff in the ongoing planning, development, and monitoring of the program, 2) offer "just-in-time" educational sessions to develop faculty and student knowledge and skills in assessment, 3) create an assessment toolbox providing faculty with templates that can be used in and outside the classroom, 4) identify, review, and modify, as required, key institutional practices to assure that they are aligned with educational objectives and outcomes. These strategies work together as a system to support the development and implementation of assessment into the university environment. A structured process provides faculty, staff, and students with a common framework to foster collaboration during the development process. The process outlines the required steps necessary to develop and implement an effective assessment program. Furthermore, the process provides a common lexicon by which everyone can effectively communicate with each other. We have found that in order to inculcate the structured process, frequent seminars and workshops must be delivered to staff, faculty, and students. These developmental initiatives help to enroll everyone into the process through understanding and constructive debate. Later on, professional development activities focus on the skills required in the operation of a comprehensive assessment program. These skills range from developing valid assessment methods to providing outcome performance feedback to students in the classroom.Once a school has established and defined the learning objectives and related outcomes for its programs, there is a need to create a series of assessment tools to measure the stated outcomes. We have found that in the early stages, this can be perceived as a daunting task. The reason for this is that there are usually many outcomes identified, thus seemingly requiring as many, if not more, methods by which to measure the anticipated changes. One of the key assessment strategies at this point is to look for common themes and needs across the institution and create what we call an assessment "toolbox." This toolbox contains a number of templates that faculty, students, and staff can use to support the measurement of identified outcomes. For example, a set of team assessment instruments can readily be developed to support faculty members who use student teams in the learning process.Our final strategy may be the most important set of actions required to institutionalize a comprehensive assessment program university-wide. There are many institutional practices that must be aligned with the objectives of an assessment program. Consider a typical promotion and tenure (P&T) practice. Many P&T practices put emphasis on a faculty member�s efforts in three areas: research, education, and service. An institution may put more emphasis on one of these areas than the others. If, for example, research is highly prized in an institution, efforts in the classroom may be given less emphasis. Thus, a faculty member will be motivated to place more effort on research than on education. However, classroom assessment initiatives can take a real commitment (and time) on the part of the faculty member. This misalignment between the tenure policy and assessment practices causes a conflict�one that is usually resolved in favor of promotion and tenure requirements. We have found that institutions must review many such practices to identify which ones will enable or hinder the implementation and eventual institutionalization of an assessment program. Administration and faculty must work together to modify misaligned practices for assessment and continuous improvement to become embedded into the educational environment.In our next issue, we will explore the first strategy�Initiating a structured process for the development and implementation of a comprehensive assessment system.¨ ../../../main.html/Gateway/focusAreas/qa_eval.html#Assessment Or contact:
Jack McGourty |
| Table of Contents | Gateway Home Page |
|
Questions or comments? Contact [email protected] Last modified: February 28, 1998. |