|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
FACULTY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Fourth Assumption!"The type of assessment most likely to improve teaching and learning is that conducted by faculty to answer questions they themselves have formulated in response to issues or problems in their own teaching."
New
Members???The Assessment Committee is looking for new members! Any interested faculty member is welcome to attend any of the Assessment Committee's meetings. The committee meets on the 2nd Wednesday of each month in the Oak Room C-209 at 1:00 pm.; topics discussed vary considerably but surround various classroom, program and instructional assessment issues.
The Annual Assessment Fair will be held at Oakton Community College in Des Plaines, Illinois. The date of the event will be Tuesday, March 3, 2004. Francis Dearing, Assessment Coordinator at Monroe Community College in New York will be the keynote speaker. Her focus will be on "Enhancing Community College Culture through Program Level Assessment." All faculty members are encouraged to attend this informative conference built significantly for the purpose of encouraging faculty sponsored classroom assessments. Further information regarding conference can be obtained through Cheryl Enger, ext 3205, by contacting John Augustine at ext. 3505.
Authentic Classroom Assessment Course???This past summer, St. Xavier University/Skylight Professional Development Program put on a 4-day workshop surrounding Authentic Classroom Assessment. Approximately 20 instructors from a variety of schools participated. Five (5) Triton college instructors took the class, which they were able to earn graduate level hours to submit for column movement.
An Eye on Your Peers!The Annual Assessment of Teaching and Learning Outcomes is a compilation of data collected by various faculty members who have completed assessments of a course, a program or curriculum. A universal format (see attached) is suggested to report findings, facilitating the ease of review of assessment plans, reports and appropriate adjustments, if necessary.
The following report was submitted
by the English Department and is worthy of being highlighted as an example
of an ongoing assessment.
REPORTING UNIT
English Department
Chairperson of the English Department
Jan Wade
Chairperson of the committee
Michael Flaherty
Virginia Brackett
Lisa Hildebrand
Melissa Batai
Plan for Academic Year 2002 - 2003 In the spring of 2002, faculty focused on general education objective #7: "Recognize cultural diversity with respect to race, ethnicity, gender, and other issues related to improving human relations. Faculty tabulated ten readings used in a variety of courses that represented cultural diversity in the areas of race, ethnicity and gender. That diversity could be represented by diverse authors of works as well as by themes, characters and plots that represented diversity in race, ethnicity and gender. That tabulation will be repeated in fall of 2002.
Report for Academic Year 2001 - 2002 Assessment of General Objective #I: Develop and demonstrate critical thinking and problem resolution skills.
FALL SEMESTER, 2001
For the fall semester, the instrument developed and used in a trial during spring of 2001 was utilized in six rhetoric 101 courses to help measure objective 1: "Develop and demonstrate critical thinking and problem resolution skills."
When completing reading and writing assignments in Rhetoric 101, students must apply critical thinking skills. An important aspect of critical thinking involves an understanding of terminology representing critical thinking skills as supplied by Bloom's Taxonomy. The terminology we chose to test students on includes: Recognize, Summarize, Identify, Analyze, Formulate and Evaluate. The committee devised a five-prompt instrument to use in testing students.
During this semester, six Rhetoric 101 classes responded to the instrument. Three instructors asked their students, with no class preparation or discussion of these critical thinking terms, to read an assignment and then respond to the five prompts designed to measure student application of the above listed skills. Instructors graded the completed instruments. Student scores ranged from a maximum of five points to a minimum of zero points on the assignment. In the second stage of the assessment, instructors discussed the critical thinking terminology.
Following discussion, students responded to a second reading using the same five prompts measuring student critical thinking skills applied to the first reading.
Instructors compared scores on the second critical thinking assignment to those on the first to determine whether any change in the critical thinking scores occurred.
Analysis:
The first undiscussed critical thinking instrument was administered to 78 students enrolled in Rhetoric 1 0 1. Of those students, 62 completed the instrument during the second administration. Ideally, students would exhibit an increase in critical thinking skills when they used the instrument a second time, following discussion of tasks and terms. During the original test of this instrument, the students scored lowest on the "Identify" and "Formulate" skills. This semester those skills were particularly emphasized during class sessions prior to the second test administration.
During this second administration of the instrument, marked improvement occurred in critical thinking application from the first test to the second. Instructors gained an understanding of which skills offer students the greatest challenge and adjusted their instructing to accommodate.
Is there a different between an assessment and an evaluation? As instructors try to understand what assessment is, this question is heard often. There is some difficulty in the two words because they are inappropriately interchanged in dialogue regarding student performance or learning outcomes.
In my opinion, assessment is a process that is continual in nature that is based on the gathering and analyzing information or evidence of what a student can do.
If after a short lecture on a concept important to the material being covered, you ask a student to explain a concept back to you. The student struggles with the explanation, stammers and stutters gets frustrated because they cannot do it and gives up. The inability of the student to explain the concept has nothing to do with their grade, but only intended to determine if the student processed the information given correctly. This is an oral assessment. It has nothing to do with the grade that he or she may receive, but based on this preliminary feedback you explain the concept again in other words directly using more generic terms geared directly toward the students' level. This process is a formative assessment.
If a week or two later after further lectures and discussions, the student is asked to explain the previously delivered concept as a written exercise for the purpose of assigning him a grade; this is an evaluation. It is no longer formative, but summative in nature and the evidence gathered is used in make a very important judgment.
The difference between assessment and evaluations are confusing at times because both types can and will lead to the assignment of grades. Classroom assessments, usually formative assessments, are intended to improve student learning while increasing the level of immediate feedback to the instructor.
House Keeping
Note!Annual Assessment plans are due in the month of May 2004. Assessment meetings are held on the 2nd. Wednesday of each month in the Oak Room C-209. The meetings are open to any full or part-time faculty member interested in assessment.
Assessment Committee Members
Kris Anderson
John Augustine
Judy Bjiang
Joseph Dusek
Jonita Ellis
Michael Flaherty
Ed Forst
Cynthia Harris
Alpha McMath
Tom Porebski
Triton College
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT UPDATE
Purpose:
Report once per year assessment plans, activities and results that are ongoing
in each program/course.
Directions:
Use the headings #1 - # 4 and follow the guidelines below. Report should be
typed and no more than two pages. Complete sections 2, 3 and 4 as appropriate
to your program's/course's assessment schedule. All full-time faculty in a
program/course should assist in the completion of this report. Your report
will be compiled with all others and bound for distribution throughout the
college.
Submission:
Submit one copy of the report to your Dean and the one to the college research
office. Completed reports are due one week after final grade submission in
May. Contact the Research Department, Cheryl Enger Ext. 3303 or John Augustine,
Ext. 3505 or any assessment committee member with questions about this report
or the schedule for completion.
1. Reporting Unit
Identification: Academic program/course, chair or coordinator, person(s) completing
the report, and date.
2. PLAN for ______semester (s),
_____(year).
What assessment do you have planned for this program/course for the upcoming
fall and spring? Summarize all aspects of your plan, i.e., objectives being
assessed, assessment tool, participants in the assessment, time frames and,
most importantly, how the results will be used. If you are deviating from
your five-year plan, indicate changes.
3. POST REPORT for _______semester (s), ______ (year)
What were the results of assessment during the past academic year? Include
results of any data, analysis, conclusions drawn, and plans for modifications
to the curriculum.
4. FOLLOW-UP
During the past year, what did you do differently as a result of previous
assessment? Were the changes effective? What other changes do you plan for
the future? Be as specific as you can. The most important component of assessment
is the feedback loop. Highlight all program improvement activities.
11/2003
