1998 Assessment Handbook
Part II: Revising and Developing an Assessment Design with
Multiple Measures
In the fall of 1993, the Academic Dean
formed a seven-member steering committee. The
Steering Committee consisted of the Registrar, the Academic Dean, and five
members of the faculty.
* Steering
Committee
The Steering committee had the task of revising the assessment plan so
that the plan was more defined, containing objective measures and producing data
that would verify successful student learning.
The Steering Committee was also to design an effective plan to assess
student learning outcomes and teaching improvement of faculty.
There were several questions asked.
For example: “What is the
college doing? How does the college
know it's doing what it says it does? How
is the college accountable to the students, the community? How effective is the college as a higher educational
institution? and How will students,
the community and faculty know that graduates are successful in employment or
transfer? The Steering Committee
discussed the appropriateness of the measures.
The discussion centered on the college’s particular and unique student
population and specific community needs.
* Student
Body
The student body is highly non-traditional by mainstream or usual higher
education standards. Over 90% of
the students are first generation college, heads of household and Native
American; and over 60% are female.
The committee agreed that the assessment plan design and measures should
correctly reveal data representative of this special population.
Methods utilized to measure must also be congruent to the predominant
learning of Native Americans, i.e. visual learning.
* College
Mission and Purposes
The Steering Committee returned to the college mission and purpose
statements. The committee was also
reminded that LCO College is a two-year associate degree and certificate
granting institution. The
assessment design and measures must also be appropriate for a community college
located on an Indian reservation.
“The mission of the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community
College is to provide, within the Indian Community,
a system of post-secondary and continuing education with associate degree and
certificate granting capabilities.”
“In carrying out the mission, the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa
Community College curriculum will reflect Ojibwa culture and tribal
self-determination. The college will provide opportunities for individual
self-improvement in a rapidly changing technological world, while maintaining
the cultural integrity of the Ojibwa.”
The
purposes of the LCO College are illustrated in the following charts:
The assessment must also be congruent
with the purposes of the LCO College. The
first purposes to be addressed were quality instruction and appropriate
curriculum with cultural enrichment. After
lengthy discussion, the committee decided that assessing student achievement
could provide validity to “quality instruction, and “...foster(ing) students
growth in cultural interest.”
In further reviewing the plan, the
Steering Committee also decided that the ABLE test was not appropriate for
college level student and would not adequately assess skills necessary for the
college level. It would not predict
success in college. With input from
the Student Support Services staff who had researched college testing, the
steering committee decided the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) seemed to
better assess students for post secondary education study. The TABE tests writing, reading and math skills and scores
and are presented in grade level form (grade 1-12.9). This measure, a standardized test, would be given pre and
post, upon entry and at graduation. Several
other tribal colleges use this TABE test and recommend that the LCO Ojibwa
Community College use it.
The Steering Committee presented its recommendations to the full faculty
committee for review. There were
several recommended changes to the current assessment plan. The interest/aptitude/ability survey would be retained, the
ABLE test would be changed to the TABE test and after lengthy discussion, a
decision was made to reject pre and post testing per course. The other measures such as after graduation and graduation
rates would be retained. Measures
added by the Steering Committee were: a
writing sample, and entrance and exit interview with a student’s advisor,
transcripts and a sample of student achievement in a student’s major field.
The data would be collected in an individual student portfolio.
The faculty accepted the recommendations that were then forwarded to the
Academic Dean.
The Academic Dean reviewed course pre and post test data from
instructors. Approximately 66% or
ten faculty members (out of 15 full-time) incorporated
pre/post testing in each course they taught.
These faculty members were also revising their curriculum based upon the
results of the pre and post testing. It
seemed to bring attention to the student’s learning more than the other
courses where there was no pre/post testing.
Also, it only made sense that in order to have a measure, baseline data
would have to be gathered. The Dean
did agree with the idea voiced from some faculty that it was difficult to
determine what exactly was learned and what the learning process actually was by
simply pre and post testing.
The Academic Dean also reviewed the interest/aptitude/ability data
(Attachment B) CAPS, COPES, COPS and agreed with the recommendation to retain
this data as a value to student self-knowledge.
The data would be reviewed over the next two semesters to see if there
were implications for adding or deleting measures to the design.
The Dean also realized that to accomplish institutional purposes, and to
validate student learning and academic preparation for employment or transfer,
external measures would need to be gathered also.
Faculty needs also began to emerge once student needs were identified.
As further meetings with the faculty continued, the idea that an
assessment plan design should measure individual students’ academic
achievement evolved. To first
assess individual students, three types of data needed to be included:
1) general knowledge in math, writing and reading; 2) academic progress
and knowledge gained in each course; and 3) student satisfaction.
Measures of student performance after graduation would also be needed.
A revised academic student assessment plan was approved by faculty and
administration.