Assessment at Three Levels:
Institution, Program, and
Course or Educational Experience
1
PEGGY MAKI, PH.D.
EDUCATION CONSULTANT IN ASSESSING
STUDENT LEARNING
PRESENTED AT CCRI
SEPTEMBER 21, 2012
Foci
2
 Integration of Institution-level
Outcomes—Educated Person—into
Program-level Outcomes and Courselevel or Educational Experience
Outcomes Inside and Outside of the
Classroom
 Alignment of Outcomes
3
 Through Mapping, Articulation of:
 Where
and How Students Learn and
 How You Assess for Institution-level and
Program-level Outcomes
 Development of a 3- 4-Year Assessment
Plan that Takes You Through Your Set of
Outcomes until Your APR is Due
4
 Development of Periodic Report Format Submitted
to Peer Review Committee That Documents How
You Have Changed or Innovated Pedagogy,
Curricular Design, Instruction, and Educational
Practices and When You Will Re-Assess to
Determine the Efficacy of Your Changes
 Development of Channels to Decision-making,
Planning, and Resource Allocation—How the
Institution Responds to Improving Student Learning
Integration of Institution-Level Outcomes:
CCRI’s Educated Person Outcomes
5
Institution-level Outcomes (CCRI’s Educated Person Outcome)
Program- or Department-level Outcomes
(including Educated Person Outcomes)
Course Outcomes/ Service Outcomes/
Educational Opportunities Outcomes
(including Educated Person Outcomes)
21st Century: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
6
Creativity
Evaluation
Knowledge
Understanding
Analysis
Application
Domains of Learning
7
Cognitive
Psychomotor
Affective
Contexts for Demonstrating
Outcomes
Alignment of Program-level Outcomes with
Institution-Level
Outcomes
8
 Example 1: (Focus on writing and speaking)
Institution Level Outcome: Students demonstrate critical thinking in
their their written work and oral presentations across the curriculum
and co-curriculum
 Program-level Outcome: Students demonstrate critical thinking in a
range of representative written documents in theater and a range of
oral presentations

•
Example 2: (Focus on Quantitative Reasoning)
Institution-Level Outcome: Students solve problems through
quantitative reasoning in their work across the curriculum and cocurriculum.
 Program-level Outcome: Students apply quantitative reasoning to a
range of social science case studies, critical incidents, and
interpretation of research

Examples
9
 Analyze and evaluate philosophical arguments and
positions (philosophy) Critical Thinking
 Write documents for different audiences and purposes
that focus on scientific and technical information
(chemistry) Writing
 Critically analyze and evaluate the merit of ideas and
arguments (political science) Critical Thinking
 Evaluate and discuss contemporary social and ethical
issues related to biology and medicine (biology) Ethical
Awareness
Purposes of Learning Outcome Statements
10
 Orient Students to the College’s and each
Program’s Expectations
 Enable Students to Identify Where and How They
Have Learned or Are Learning across the
Institution
 Position Students to Make Connections Between
and Among Their Learning Experiences along
Their Educational Journey
 Lead to Collaborative Agreement about Direct and
Indirect Methods to Assess Students’
Achievement of Outcomes
11
Programlevel
Outcome
Course-level
CT Outcome
Course
Design to
Foster
Outcome
Assignments
that Align
with
Outcome
Criteria and
Standards of
judgment
Course Alignment for Outcomes
12
Course
Outcomes
Course and
Instructional
Design or
Educational
Practices
Assessment
Methods and
Criteria of
Judgment
Mapping: Where and How Students Learn
13
 Helps us determine coherence among our




educational practices that enables us, in turn, to
design appropriate assessment methods (See
sample map)
Identifies gaps in learning opportunities that may
account for students’ level of achievement
Provides a visual representation of students’
journey
Helps students make meaning of the journey and
hold them accountable for their learning over time
Helps students develop their own learning map
Mapping: How You Assess
14
Direct Methods, Including Some That
Provide Descriptive Data about Students’
Meaning- making Processes, Such as
“Think Alouds”
Indirect Methods, Including Some That
Provide Descriptive Data, such as Small
Group Instructional Design or SALG
Survey
Institutional data (course taking
patterns, for example)
Development of a 3-4-Year Assessment Plan
15
 Develop a plan over 3-4 years that cycles
through your program-level outcomes
that also address your institution-level
outcomes
 Present an assessment plan for each year
that documents:
16

The set of outcomes you will assess

A collaborative commitment to that set: Syllabi Audit or
Curricular Map

Direct and Indirect Methods you will use to assess

Criteria and standards of judgment you apply to student work
such as a scoring rubric

Your method of collecting student work and analyzing results

Ways you will engage colleagues in reviewing and acting on
assessment results
17
 Translate that plan into a report format that
periodically explains how your collaborative
discussion of results has informed your plans to
revise or innovate pedagogy, curricular design,
instructional design or educational practices across
the curriculum. Changing only one course is
likely not enough to foster enduring learning.
Channeling Results and Proposed Changes
18
 Develop Communication Channels to Institutional
Decision-making, Planning, and Allocation of
Resources

Results should be considered in annual and long-range
planning

Results may be prioritized by a receiving committee that
funnels priorities to the Board