Start Anew with the Scholarship that is Classroom Assessment

The beginning of January is a time when newness, like the returning morning sun, shines all around us, and it can be a good time to consider new approaches in the classroom. The particular “new approaches” this article looks at are assessment methods. Wait! Come back! After working with faculty on assessment for many years, I know that most aren’t eager to hear (or hear more) about assessment. If that describes you, I urge you to ignore the uses of the ‘A’ word here and focus on the questions. Consider starting this semester with some new patterns and methods for assessing student knowledge and capability.

The four section-header questions below no doubt look very familiar. They probably sound like what you say to yourself about your students’ learning all the time. By starting with such ordinary, ongoing questions, it’s possible (and not hard!) to ensure that assessment is not only something you do, and do all the time, but is also something that gives you and your students helpful information.

Asking these questions in sequence can make for a positive change in your current patterns of assessment. Many faculty who feel they already “do assessment “all the time follow a traditional pattern that looks something like this: Teach—Quiz—Teach—Midterms/Papers—Teach—Final/Paper. But research on effective classroom assessment tells us that a different pattern is far more effective for students, and immensely more satisfying for instructors:

Diagnose—Teach—Assess During Each Class Session—Test—Analyze/Reinforce—Repeat.

Are They Prepared to Learn What I’m Prepared to Teach? (Diagnostic Pre-Tests)

Ask diagnostic questions at the beginning of every course, and then within the course at the beginning of every new and difficult section. Plan carefully to find out not whether students already know the content and details, but whether they have conceptual foundations. Rather than asking questions like, “What were the primary economic causes of the Civil War?” or “Which laws of dynamics are demonstrated by the action of a golf ball struck by a club?” ask instead, “Which of the following were likely factors causing the Civil War?” or, “When you strike a golf ball with a golf club, what forces are acting on the ball?” You can compare the answers students give in these first assessments to those after the relevant lesson is taught, and again at the end of the course. The individual students’ developments in understanding, as well as the class patterns (e.g., 30% could fully answer at semester start, but at semester end, 80% could) can be as interesting and encouraging to your students as they are useful to you. An example of research on diagnostic assessments is a paper by Harkness (2005), available online.

Are They Getting the Key Ideas Today? (Classroom Assessment Techniques)

In 1988, Angelo and Cross first published the popular Classroom Assessment Techniques. Their most well-known strategy—perhaps because it’s also easiest to employ—is the One-Minute Paper. Although many effective variations on the technique have been developed, research by Stead (2005) underscores how effective these quick, end-of-class writing assignments are for improving student attention—and learning. Eric Mazur’s research in the use of ConcepTests (multiple-choice quiz questions adapted for frequent use as diagnostics during lectures) also underscores how low-risk, high-engagement challenges during class can really change what an instructor teaches and how well students learn (Mazur, 1997). You could also try, like Japanese professors Susono and Shimomura (2006), using cell phones for text messages from students.

How’s This Class Going? Can I Make Productive Changes? (Mid-Semester Feedback)

For a big-picture assessment of students’ perceptions of a course and their ideas on how it can be improved while it is still in-progress, Student Group Instructional Feedback (SGIF) sessions can be conducted between the 4th and 10th week of a course. They yield benefits for instructors as well as for students. SGIFs are best facilitated by an outsider (CTL/instructional consultant, colleague from another program, former student, etc.) who is prepared to get oral consensus from students on what is working for them as learners, what doesn’t work, and what, within the instructor’s control, they recommend be changed. Over the past decade, faculty report positive outcomes in post-SGIF classes. (Creed, 1997; McKone, 1999)

Now That the Class Is Over, What Did We All Learn? (End-of-Semester Assessment)

Think beyond the Student Evaluation of Teaching. While SETs are the most-researched phenomenon in all of higher education, and their validity and reliability well-established, they are instruments that assess student satisfaction with and opinions about teaching. If you and your students want to review how much learning occurred in a semester, schedule a final class session to compare earlier diagnostic assessments with final-exam prep materials. And consider additional learning-celebration ideas suggested in Timmons and Wagner (2007). Record your observations of this class session as evidence for yourself (and for publication!) on what learning your students, and you, attained.

-Lynda Milne

Full citations appear at the bottom of this HTML version and in the PDF version.

CTL Resources for Faculty

Teaching in the Disciplines

Critical Thinking and Oral Communication Assessment Rubrics

Shelby Reigstad received funding from the College Faculty Awards for Excellence for this project. The following is adapted by Martin Springborg, MnSCU Center for Teaching and Learning, from Reigstad’s College Faculty Awards for Excellence final report.

Shelby Reigstad, faculty at St. Paul College, recently completed a College Faculty Awards for Excellence project entitled “Design and Pilot Test the Critical thinking and Oral Communication Assessment Rubrics.” Her project focused on understanding student achievement in human communication and critical-thinking. Specifically, her aim was to become aware of and assess competencies that students need to develop within the areas of human communication and critical thinking. She also wanted to link current technologies to these capabilities, and found that a well-written assessment tool contributed to improved teaching and learning.

Reigstad first collected existing assessment tools. She then conducted an analysis of each sample and wrote pilot rubrics based on her findings. Finally, she tested the newly written pilot rubrics in speech communication courses.

Reigstad found that using an assessment rubric improved teaching and learning in the classroom. Students developed and employed communication skills through classroom curriculum and assessment across disciplines and, upon conclusion of programs, in job searches.

Students were excited once they had made necessary connections between assessment methods and course education material. Reigstad reported that it was astonishing to witness the “glory of learning” as was made possible through critical thinking criteria and ability to communicate that knowledge to others. Development of new ways of thinking and ability to present ideas in a clear and well-thought-out manner has been seen through the development and use of new scoring rubrics.

Assessment rubrics were useful in identifying student skill areas and then gauging the increase of knowledge over the course of a semester. A rubric designed for a specific knowledge area was a practical method to help learners increase their abilities in that area. Identifying where learners' abilities were, as well as adapting them to existing technology, was an important and necessary part of this overall process. Rubric tools were continually developed to ensure learner growth.

One lasting impression from this project is that critical thinking and oral communication skills could be primary outcomes for a college-level education. These skill areas are important for students to develop for life and employment marketability. Reigstad learned in the course of completing this project that, just as the student population is changing, so is technology. Students with knowledge and experience with technology as well as critical thinking skills will be more profitable for organizations and ultimately more marketable for employment. Long-term development in the understanding of critical thinking and oral communication skills are critical to the commitment to student success.

For more on this CFAE project and others, visit the CFAE Web site at:

http://webs.anokaramsey.edu/irsp/Default.htm

-Martin Springborg