This week's readings in EAD966 are from Astin's book on assessment. Though it's dated, he has some good, baseline information about what and how we assess our students and our institutions as a whole. Much of what he writes about is the variability of information that can be collected and the context for which we collect it. What are we trying to measure? How can we best measure it? Though he is focusing more on institution-wide or the big-picture outcomes, the underlying practices of assessment are applicable at the class level as well as institutional level.
Assessment is often about judgments based on best practices. There are just some things that aren't good, but there are some areas that I (in a very technical manner) call "squiggy". There are some "hard and fast" rules; there are some grey areas where you can take some liberties as long as you do it advisedly. Deciding how to assess students at the course level is one of those areas where there are best-practice guidelines, but there often aren't right and wrong answers. It's a judgment call, and sometimes you just have to dive in, try it, and tweak it the next time around.
I was privileged to see this process wrestled through with upper-level students yesterday. Our first-year core group facilitators wrestled through the formulations and the use of a grading rubric for reflection essays, and the various philosophies that can be used in assessing student development and progress. They have experienced these decisions made by others behind the curtain, but have never worked through that process on their own as the decision makers about assessment. They agreed they wanted to take an instructional role with their first year students, and will norm use of the rubric we decided on among themselves.
This might be the most tangible assessment results I've had in a while.
