Steve Tanimoto, Professor, Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering
Steve Kerr, Professor, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction
University of Washington, Seattle
Tyler Robison, University of Washington, Seattle
Brad Goring, University of Washington, Seattle
Eliana Medina, University of Washington, Seattle
Yen-Ling Lee, University of Washington, Seattle
Mikhail Manyak, University of Washington, Seattle
Jamie Cromack, Microsoft Research
Laura Bofferding, Stanford University
Turadg Aleahmad, Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
James Wen, Positive Motion
Origins of the REAssess project
Goals of the REAssess project
Assessment Framework
What is REAssess?
REAssess Demonstration
Issues & Feedback
Wanted to determine impact of funded projects on students
Created a document-based “assessment toolkit” for use on a small
scale (Arizona State University)
Recognized the value of deploying a web-based site to support all
STEM faculty
Identified team of PIs to head the project (University of Washington)
REAssess the future of assessment and learning in science,
technology, math and engineering with searchable annotated
resources, tools and templates focused on the STEM disciplines
Engage the science, technology, engineering and math
teaching (STEM) communities in deeper thinking about
educational assessment
Offer useful, annotated, well-organized, targeted resources
for educational assessment
Provide a clearinghouse for educational assessmentrelated activities (search, contribute, communicate, learn)
Host assessment-related services (future)
Traditional assessment landscape
“Measure whether they can recall facts and do procedures”
Standardized tests
Short-answer tests
Essay tests
Summative privileged over formative
Provide valuable information
But are only part of the picture
Growing concerns over traditional assessment approaches
How People Learn (NRC/NAP 1999)
National Action Plan for … STEM Education (NSF, 2007)
ABET 2008-09 Criteria for Accrediting Computing Programs
Commission on … Higher Education (Miller-Malandra, 2006)
Quality of US higher education system
The Post-American World (Zakaria, 2008)
Contemporary Assessment Approaches
“Assess in order to see how much they understand and can do”
Authentic assessment (“in context”)
Real world settings, simulations, portfolios
Group learning
Projects, presentations, role-plays
Identifying components of competence
Adaptive expertise and self assessment
Continuous unobtrusive assessment
Regular formative feedback to learners
And to improve instruction!
Search
Contribute
Communicate
Learn
Search
Simple Search by Keywords
and Discipline
Search by Wizard
Search Multiple Choice
Questions
Explore Assessment
Services
Contribute
Contribute Multiple
Choice Question
Contribute Other
Resources & Reviews
Communicate
Share News about
Assessment
Read the Assessment Blog
Contribute to the
Assessment Wiki
Learn
Cases in Effective
Assessment
About Educational
Assessment
Featured Resources
FAQ
Eliana Medina
Tyler Robison
Turadg Aleahmad
1. Promote sharing and reuse
2. Reviews and ratings of assessment resources
3. Easily adaptable tools and templates
4. Attract and promote cutting-edge assessments
5. Assessment tutorials & information
6. Respect for authorship of materials
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
8. Free access to assessment materials
Re
Pr
vie
om
ws
ot
an
es
d
ha
r
Ea
at
ri n
i
sil
ng
ga
ya
so
nd
At
da
fa
re
tra
pt
s
us
se
ab
ct
e
ss
le
an
m
to
d
e
nt
ol
pr
sa
om
r..
As
.
nd
ot
se
ec
te
ss
m
m
ut
en
pl
tin
Re
at
tt
ges
sp
ut
e
dg
ec
or
Op
ia
t
e
ls
as
fo
tio
&
...
ra
ns
i
ut
nf
fo
h
o
or
rm
rp
sh
ee
at
Fr
i
io
p
rc
ee
n
o
om
fm
ac
m
ce
at
un
ss
er
ica
ial
to
s
t
as
io
n
se
/i
ss
n.
m
..
en
tm
at
er
ia
ls
7. Options for peer communication / interaction
1. Only if new question instances are
automatically generated.
2. Only if “use with variation” is encouraged
3. Only with limited access by students
f..
no
t
te
st
s,
to
pr
ac
tic
e
ct
ed
yf
or
On
l
ti
fi
yi
On
l
it h
yw
On
l
sr
lim
es
tri
ite
d
ac
tio
ce
ss
b
n”
i..
y.
..
.
c. .
w
it h
va
r ia
in
st
an
us
e
f“
yi
On
l
On
l
yi
fn
ew
qu
es
tio
n
5. Only for practice tests, not for real tests
us
e.
..
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
4. Only if it is restricted to use by faculty
1. I would contribute much more
2. I would contribute more
3. No effect
4. I would contribute less
5. I would contribute much less
ld
co
n
ld
le
ss
uc
h
tri
bu
t
co
n
em
tri
bu
t
el
es
s
ef
fe
ct
No
Iw
ou
e
or
em
tri
bu
t
co
n
ld
Iw
ou
Iw
ou
Iw
ou
ld
co
n
tri
bu
t
em
uc
h
m
or
e
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
1. Bona-fide faculty vetted through detailed application process
2. Bona-fide faculty vetted through a return-email process
3. Access to resources increases with level of involvement with
REAssess site
4. Other
nc
r
es
i
er
0%
Ot
h
t..
.
re
so
ur
c
o
es
st
Ac
c
0%
ea
s..
0%
ve
tte
d
ty
fa
cu
l
de
-fi
Bo
na
Bo
na
-fi
de
fa
cu
l
ty
ve
tte
d
t..
.
0%
1. Yes
2. No
0%
No
Ye
s
0%
Microsoft Research
Faculty Summit 2008