MYTHS IN ASSESSMENT

Assessment Myths

Find out the facts behind common assessment myths! 

Myth 1

Assessment is just the latest fad in higher education

The Reality

Assessment has been

-Common practice in higher education for over thirty years

-The emphasis of accreditors for at least twenty-five years

-A formal expectation of all regional accreditors since 2004.

Myth 2

Assessment is just about collecting evidence in case the Higher Learning Commission wants to see it some time

The Reality

Collecting evidence isn’t enough

Assessment needs systems and strategies that produce actionable evidence

Assessment is Closer to standardized and coordinated individual practice and further from bureaucracy?

Myth 3

Assessment strategies need to be objective and uniform

The Reality

Most judgments about student performance are subjective

What makes strategies “valid” is the consistent application of criteria

Consistency builds over time, with practice

Myth 4

Grades ought to be a good enough indicator of student performance; additional assessment isn’t really necessary

The Reality

Desired outcomes (course, program, and institutional) may not be measured by the grading process

An assignment or course may support multiple learning outcomes

A course grade often measures much more than intended outcomes

A Digression on Outcomes

Outcomes are the intended or desired results of student work

Outcomes describe what a students can do with what he/she knows

Outcomes are performance-based

Outcomes define the essential abilities of a graduate or course completer – what a student carries with him/herself to the next level

Many variables affect grades participation, attendance, group work with student not in the program, and so on

Individual assignments have objectives that may only tangentially connect with outcomes while the rest of the course does not

Outcomes may be developed and measured only partially in some courses, one outcome often is measured through multiple courses

Myth 5

Assessment tools must be validated before they are used

The Reality

Externally validated tools ignore nuanced differences between and among disciplines

“Home-grown” tools can reflect institutional and departmental values and can be validated over time

Value in the process is validation if used continuously and revised over time

Myth 6

There is no valid way to assess abstract qualities like critical thinking

The Reality

Commercial instruments may be useful if they align with institutional outcomes or values

VALUE rubrics might be a starting point

Institutions can develop rubrics that cross disciplines but respect disciplinary differences as well by aiming at core elements, the “deep learning” that students carry with them

Graduate Candidacy and Defense exam rubrics work very well

Myth 7

Once you’ve defined outcomes and mapped them through the curriculum, you can be relatively sure that students will develop them

The Reality

Taking a course doesn’t guarantee learning

Students must demonstrate the achievement of the learning outcome

Assessing formative learning is as important as assessing summative learning

Myth 8

Programs only need to assess a final test or capstone course

The Reality

“High stakes” for both the student and the institution

Challenging to measure all outcomes at once

No opportunity for mid-course corrections

Myth 9

Assessment is just another sneaky way of evaluating faculty

The Reality

Assessment results should not be used to evaluate individual faculty

Participating in the assessment process can be a job expectation and therefore be evaluated, but the results of an assessment should not

Myth 10

Assessment is unnecessary busy work

The Reality

Assessment emphasizes improving student learning and not completing reports

Assessment should connect to existing program processes and structures

The best approach organic and local

Myth 11

Technology makes it all easier; all we need for good assessment is a good data management system

The Reality

Different disciplines / different strategies

Technology should not drive assessment and reporting methodologies

Technology cannot make judgments

Disciplinary learning experts still need to analyze the data and plan improvements

Data structures may limit intuitive judgments

Myth 12

Responsibility for assessing general education or institutional outcomes belongs to specific service departments, such as Institutional Assessment Office

The Reality

Institutional outcomes are an institutional responsibility and programmatic outcomes belong solely to the programs

Programs assess what graduates can do later in their careers in their respective fields

Myth 13

Assessment is easy and/or involves no extra work

The Reality

Assessment is an intuitive process for faculty

Assessment involves intentional curriculum planning

Assessment requires more coordination than most current curricula

Assessment involves public conversations about outcomes and criteria and public analysis of results

May involve both aggregated and individual analyses

Conversations can lead to clearer, less anecdotal, more concrete decision-making about curriculum, pedagogy, and resources

Results inform external stakeholders of institutional and programmatic progress

“Assessment is the systematic collection, review, and use of information about educational programs undertaken for the purpose of improving student learning and development” – Marchese, in Palomba and Banta, Assessment Essentials, 1999

Source: Ohio State University