2 assignments for this week + responses

From: Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (1999) Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses, Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning. Allyn & Bacon.

FOR CLASS USE ONLY

~ 1 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing, the same way, all the time-but expecting different results (Anony- mous).

It is tradition. It was a part of my train- ing, and seems like what Ishould be

doing. I feel somehow guilty when I am not lecturing (Creed, 1986, p. 25).

Suddenly Isaw things differently, and because Isaw differently, Ithought dif- ferently, Ifelt differently, and Ibehaved differently (Covey, 1989, p. 31).

Making Connections

As you begin to read the chapter, think about ideas and experiences you've al- ready had that are related to experiencing a paradigm shift ...

• What are your assumptions about how learners learn?

• What are your assumptions about the best way to teach?

• How do you know if your teaching has been successful?

• How have your ideas about teach- ing and learning changed over the years?

• How can you help your students im- prove what they learn and how they learn?

• What are your students learning . that will help them be successful in the informa tion age?

Continued

1

2 Chapter 1

Making Connections Continued

• In your role as a teacher, what is your relationship to the rest of your institution?

• What do you know about the as­ sessment movement in higher edu­ cation?

• How do assessment results help you understand what your stu­

dents know and don't know, what they can do and can't do?

What else do you know about experienc­ ing a paradigm shift?

What questions do you have about experi­ encing a paradigm shift 7

Tomorrow's citizens, tomorrow's leaders, tomorrow's experts are sitting in today's college classrooms. Are they learning what they need to know? Are faculty using teaching methods that prepare them for future roles?

Struggling to answer these questions, those of us who teach in higher ed­ ucation are looking at how we teach and trying to evaluate what we do. This is not an easy task. The many years we spent as students shaped our notions of what teaching is all about. These notions may be so deeply embedded in our world views that they are virtually invisible to us, eluding objective ex­ amination. On top of that, many of us have spent additional years teaching as we were taught-practicing the "old ways." Few of us have had opportu­ nities to study teaching the way we study topics in our own disciplines. It is difficult to step back, analyze current approaches critically, make revisions, and move ahead, confident that the new direction is the right one.

TEACHER-CENTERED AND LEARNER-CENTERED PARADIGMS OF INSTRUCTION

Most of us learned to teach using the lecture method, and research has shown that traditional, teacher-centered methods are "not ineffective ... but the ev­ idence is equally clear that these conventional methods are not as effective as some other, far less frequently used methods" (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1994, p. 29). In fact, the lecture method is clearly less effective than other methods in changing thoughts and attitudes (Bligh, 1972; Eison & Bonwell, 1988). These findings suggest that a change in the traditional method of college teaching is needed in order to enhance student learning (Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, 1997, 1999).

3 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Throu gh Assessment

The primary learning environment for undergraduate students, the fairly passive lecture-discussion format where faculty talk and most students lis­ ten, is contrary to almost every principle of an optimal student learning set­ ting ... Intimate faculty-student contact that encourages feedback , that motivates students, that allows students to perform is the exception and not the norm (Guskin, 1997, pp. 6-7).

The current view in higher education is that we should focus on student learning rather than teaching in order to improve students' college experi­ ences (e.g., Cross, 1998). The reason is not so much that our current approach is "broken" and in need of "fixing," but rather that we are underperforming (Engelkemeyer & Brown, 1998). We are failing to use existing knowledge about learning and our own institutional resources to produce graduates who leave the institution ready to succeed in the information age. " We have failed to realize the synergistic effect of designing, developing, and delivering cur­ ricula, programs, and services that collaboratively and collectively deepen, enhance, and enable higher levels of learning" (p . 10) .

As shown in Figure 1-1, the shift from teaching to learning has been en­ dorsed by many prominent leaders and theorists in higher education since the mid-1980s . In addition, in 1998, the Joint Task Force on Student Learning appointed by the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), and the National Associa­ tion of Student Personnel Administrators Qoint Task Force, 1998a, 1998b) alerted us to the need for all segments of a college campus to work together to enhance and deepen student learning. The Task Force developed a set of propositions about learning that can be used by both faculty and student af­ fairs professionals to guide future practice. These propositions are presented in Chapter 2.

The idea of focusing on learning rather than teaching requires that we re­ think our role and the role of students in the learning process. To focus on learning rather than teaching, we must challenge our basic assumptions about how people learn and what the roles of a teacher should be . We must unlearn previously acquired teaching habits. We must grapple with funda­ mental questions about the roles of assessment and feedback in learning. We must change the culture we create in the courses we teach. In other words, we must experience a paradigm shift.

What is a paradigm? Paradigm means model, pattern, or example . A par­ adigm establishes rules, defines boundaries, and describes how things be­ have within those boundaries (Barker, 1992). A paradigm is like the rules of a game that define the playing field and the domain of possibilities on that field. A new paradigm changes the playing field by making it larger or smaller, or even moving it somewhere else, which in turn affects the domain

4 Chapter 1

• Students learn by becoming involved ... Student involvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience (Astin, 1985, pp. 133-134).

• The routine is always the same: Begin the unit, teach the unit, give the students a test, correct the test, return the test, review the "right" answers with the class, collect the test, and record the grades. Then move on to the next unit. If we continue this practice, how will students learn to use experiences from past units to improve the work they do on future units? (Bonstingl, 1996, p . 30)

• Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in class listening to teachers, memorizing prepackaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves (Chickering & Camson, 1987, p. 3) .

• The ultimate criterion of good teaching is effective learning (Cross, 1993, p. 20). • We also know, from research on cognition, that students who reflect on their

learning are better learners than those who do not (Cross, 1996, p . 6). • Learning is, after all, the goal of all education, and it is through a lens that focuses

on learning that we must ultimately examine and judge our effectiveness as educators (Cross, 1996, p. 9).

• Students learn what they care about and remember what they understand (Erickson, 1984, p. 51).

• Our entire educational system is designed to teach people to do things the one right way as defined by the authority figure . We are taught to recite what we hear or read without critically interacting with the information as it moves in and out of short-term memory. In this exchange, the information leaves no tracks, and independent thinking skills are not developed (Lynch, 1991, p. 64).

• Classes in which students are expected to receive information passively rather than to participate actively will probably not be effective in encouraging students to think reflectively. Similarly, tests and assignments that emphasize only others' definitions of the issues or others ' conclusions will not help students learn to define and conclude for themselves (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 239).

FIGURE 1-1 Importance of Learner-Centered Teaching from the Viewpoint of Prominent Leaders in Higher Education

of possibilities. Those of us who shift our paradigm regarding teaching and learning have new rules, new boundaries, and new ways of behaving.

To develop new conceptualizations, we must analyze our old ways of thinking and make continuous changes. If our ways of thinking are not ana­ lyzed, they remain unchanged, existing patterns continue, and "structures of which we are unaware hold us prisoner" (Senge, 1990, p. 60) . When people challenge present paradigms, paradigm structures loosen their hold and in­ dividuals begin to alter their behaviors to improve processes and systems. As expressed by Covey (1989) in the quote at the beginning of this chapter, to shift the paradigm, we must experience a personal change. To focus on stu­ dent learning, we must shift from a traditional teaching paradigm to a learner-centered paradigm.

5 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

Changing the question from How will I teach this? to How will students learn this? lays bare tacit assumptions about what should be learned and how it should be taught. Specifying what "this" is turns out to be a difficult prob­ lem . All too often what is learned turns out not to be what was intended, which often is different also from what was actually taught (Hakel, 1997, p. 19).

Figure 1-2 is a comparison of the traditional teaching paradigm and the emerging leamer-centered paradigm. Similar comparisons can be found in

Teacher-Centered Paradigm Learner-Centered Paradigm

Knowledge is transmitted from Students construct knowledge through professor to students. gathering and synthesizing information and

integrating it with the general skills of inquiry, communication, critical thinking, problem solving, and so on.

Students passively receive Students are actively involved. information.

Emphasis is on acquisition of Emphasis is on using and communicating knowledge outside the context knowledge effectively to address enduring in which it will be used. and emerging issues and problems in real-life

contexts. Professor's role is to be Professor's role is to coach and facilitate. primary information giver Professor and students evaluate learning and primary evaluator. together. Teaching and assessing are Teaching and assessing are intertwined . separate.

Assessment is used to Assessment is used to promote and diagnose monitor learning. learning. Emphasis is on right answers. Emphasis is on generating better questions

and learning from errors. Desired learning is assessed Desired learning is assessed directly through indirectly through the use of papers, projects, performances, portfolios, and objectively scored tests . the like. Focus is on a single discipline. Approach is compatible with interdisciplinary

investigation. Culture is competitive Culture is cooperative, collaborative, and and individualistic. supportive. Only stud ents are viewed as learners.

Professor and students learn together.

See also Barr and Tagg (1995) ; Bonstingl (1992); Boyatzis, Cowen, Kolb and Associates (1995 ); Duffy and Jones (1995 ); and Kleinsasser (1995).

FIGURE 1-2 Comparison of Teacher-Centered and Learner-Centered Paradigms

6 Chapter 1

Barr and Tagg (1995); Bonstingl (1992); Boyatzis, Cowen, Kolb and Associates (1995); and Duffy and Jones (1995). When we examine this figure, we see that our thinking about teaching is based on assumptions about the role of stu­ dents in learning, about our roles as teachers, and about the role of assess­ ment. Our paradigm also includes assumptions about how people learn and about the type of environment or culture that supports learning. A thorough discussion of the differences between traditional and learner-centered para­ digms is presented in Chapter 2, along with an opportunity to examine our own teaching practices and the assumptions that support them.

Reflections

As you create your own meaning from • In what ways does my practice the ideas in this section, begin to think seem to fall within the traditional about . .. paradigm?

• In what ways does my practice • Which characteristics in Figure 1-2 seem to fall within the leamer-cen­

best describe my beliefs and prac­ tered paradigm? tice as a teacher?

A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNER­ CENTERED TEACHING

In addition to examining our own teaching practices as we shift to a learner­ centered approach, we must also consider oW' relationship to the institution in which we teach. This is because we and our students are part of an entire educational system that has developed at our institution from its teaching mission. In a system, each part affects the behaviors and properties of the whole system (Ackoff, 1995). Whenever there is a need for improvement, ef­ forts should be targeted at the system as a whole as well as at the parts indi­ vidually.

Thus, efforts to promote student-centered teaching and assessing should be made at the academic program and institutional levels, as well as at the level of the individual professor or course . According to Senge (1990), sys­ tems thinking is a conceptual "framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static snapshots" (p. 68). The outcome of a system is based on how each part is interacting with the rest of the parts, not on how each part is doing (Kofman & Senge, 1993).

Conceptualizing higher education as a system may make more sense to students than it does to professors. As professors, we tend to focus on prepar­

7 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Thro'ugh Assessment

ing and delivering our own courses, whereas students enroll in and experi­ ence a program as a whole, Chapter 2 emphasizes that students are driven to make sense of their experiences and to actively construct their knowledge by integrating new information with current understanding, This means that, throughout their academic programs, students are developing their general skills and disciplinary expertise by making sense of the curriculum as they ex­ perience it The knowledge, skills, and abilities that students achieve at the end of their programs are affected by how well courses and other experiences in the curriculum fit together and build on each other throughout the under­ graduate years.

In this systems view of the curriculum, we must examine how the system fosters student learning. When and where are skills and content knowledge introduced? In which courses are they developed and reinforced? Is there un­ necessary duplication of emphasis for some topics, but incomplete coverage for others? Are courses designed to be taken in an order that supports learn­ ing? Are the teaching styles and approaches of the faculty who deliver the curriculum compatible with each other and with the principles of student­ centered learning? Are they effective?

When we begin to view our programs as systems, we think about our own courses differently. For example, we become aware that prerequisite courses are important inputs into our own courses and that our courses are the inputs for subsequent courses that students will take. The following story illustrates one professor's understanding that students' efforts to make sense of new information will be more effective when courses in a curriculum build on one another.

[ taught the first-level theonj course and I was asked to teach the second level. Since I did not know what the third level required, I enrolled in the third level course so that I would know how to teach the second level (Freed & Klu~man, 1997, p. 35).

In a systems framework, we work together to design and deliver a cur­ riculum that is coherent to students rather than work separately to design in­ dividual courses that we find personally satisfying. We also seek partners in other academic departments, student affairs, the library, the computer center, and other segments of the institution that provide services to enhance learn­ ing. Systems thinking continually reminds us that our courses are compo­ nents of an entire system to support learning.

This type of systems thinking has been encouraged by the assessment movement in higher education. Assessment is a learner-centered movement which encourages us to focus on the student learning component of our teaching as it takes place within the entire system of our institution and within the smaller systems of our academic programs and courses.

8 Chapter 1

Reflections

As you crea te your own meaning from the ideas in this section, begin to think about . ..

• What kind of "system" am I a part of? How do my courses fit into the curriculum of my academic pro­ gram?

DEFINITION OF ASSESSMENT

• How can my faculty colleagues and I dialogue about the interrela­ tionship of courses and experi­ ences in our program?

• How can we involve appropriate colleagues from other parts of the ins titu tion?

Learning is the focus and ultimate goal of the learner-centered paradigm. Be­ cause of this, assessment plays a key role in shifting to a learner-centered ap­ proach. When we assess our students' learning, we force the questions, "What have our students learned and how well have they learned it?" "How successful have we been at what we are trying to accomplish?" Because of this focus on learning, assessment in higher education is sometimes referred to as outcomes assessment or student outcomes assessment.

As shown in Figure 1-2, assessment in a learner-centered paradigm is also an integral part of teaching. In other words, through assessment, we not only monitor learning, but we also promote learning. As will be explained throughout this book, we can both encourage and shape the type of learning we desire through the types of assessment we use.

We define assessment as follows:

Assessment is the process of gathering and discussing information from multiple and diverse sources in order to develop a deep understanding of what students know, understand, and can do with their knowledge as a re­ sult of their educational experiences; the process culminates when assess­ ment results are used to improve subsequent learning.

In a college or university at which the faculty take a learner-centered ap­ proach, the assessment process takes place at all levels-institutional, pro­ gram, and course. The process is fundamentally the same at all levels, although the focus, methods, and interested parties may change somewhat from level to level.

Furthermore, the process at one level is related to the process at another. For example, the quality of student learning at the end of a program-the focus of program or institutional assessment-depends in part on how and

9 bperiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

how well we are assessing student learning in our courses. As individuals, are we focusing on developing the knowledge, skills, and abilities that the faculty as a whole have agreed are important? Are we using appropriate teaching and assessing strategies?

In turn, the quality of student learning in courses depends in part on the type of information yielded by program assessment data. Do the program­ matic data reveal that we should focus more on student writing? Do they in­ dicate that a particular concept is poorly understood by graduates and needs greater coverage? Do s tudents report that some courses seem outdated or that a prerequisite is misplaced? Program assessment and classroom assessment interact to provide data to enhance student learning.

A practical sense of the many ways in which faculty have approached as­ sessment at their institutions can be found in the 82 case examples provided by Banta, Lund, Black, and Oblander (1996) . Illustrations of assessment in general education and various major disciplines are provided from a number of different institutions.

Reflections

As you create your own meaning from the ideas in this section, begin to think about . ..

• How is the definition of assess­ ment presented in this section similar to my own view of assess­ ment?

• How is it different? • What do I know about assessment

at my institution?

• What do I know about assessment in my academic program?

• How do I assess student learning in my courses?

• How does my approach to assess­ ment support learning in my aca­ demic program?

• What changes have I made in m y courses based on assessment re­ sults gathered in my academic pro­ gram?

ELEMENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

There are four fundamental elements of learner-centered assessment. These are shown in Figure 1-3.

Formulating Statements of Intended Learning Outcomes

The first element of the assessment process is that, as faculty, we develop a set of intended learning outcomes, statements describing our intentions about

10 Chapter 1

Formulate sta temen ts of

intended learning '~

Discuss and \ Develop or use assessmen t

select assessmentresults to improve meas ures, learning,

Create experiences leading to

~.

FIGURE 1-3 The Assessment Process

what students should know, understand, and be able to do with their knowl­ edge when they graduate. Faculty at many institutions have formulated common learning outcomes for all students at the institution. Intended learn­ ing outcomes reflecting the discipline should also be developed for each aca­ demic program and for each course in the program.

Discussed at length in Chapter 4, these statements typically begin with the phrase, "Students will be able to .. . " The s tatements are obviously learner-centered, and developing them reflects a systems approach to teach­ ing in the program. When we collectively decide what graduates of an insti­ tution or program should know , understand, and be able to do, we are working as a team, rather than as individuals. We are collectively confronting perhaps the most fundamental question in higher education, "What does the degree or certificate that we award mean and how can we prove it?" (Plater, 1998, p. 12)

When assessment takes place at the institutional or academic program level rather than the course level, only the most important goals of the insti­ tution or program are addressed in assessment. As will be discussed in Chap­ ter 4, learning goals at the institutional level are likely to be more broadly stated than those at the program level, and those at the program level are likely to be more broadly stated than those at the course level. However, achieving the more specific learning goals that we develop for a course or even for a specific class period should help students make progress toward achieving program and / or institutional goals.

11 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

Reflections

As you create your own meaning from • How could we work together to do the ideas in this section, begin to think this? about . .. • What intended outcomes would I

develop for my courses that would • How successfully have faculty in support program / institutional out­

my program worked together to comes? formulate intended learning out­ comes for our program?

Developing or Selecting Assessment Measures

The second element of the assessment process is designing or selecting data gathering measures to assess whether or not our intended learning outcomes have been achieved. This element not only provides the foundation for data gathering, but it also brings to a culmination the previous step of determin­ ing learning outcomes. This is because the process of designing assessment measures forces us to come to a thorough understanding of what we really mean by our intended learning outcomes (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). As we develop our assessment measures, we may find ourselves fine-tuning our learning outcomes.

Our assessment measures should include both direct and indirect as­ sessments of student learning (Palomba & Banta, 1999). Direct assessments may take a variety of forms-projects, products, papers/theses, exhibitions, performances, case studies, clinical evaluations, portfolios, interviews, and oral exams (see Chapters 6, 7, and 8). In all of these assessments, we ask stu­ dents to demonstrate what they know or can do with their knowledge. Most, if not all, of these forms of assessment can be incorporated into typical college courses, although a few (e.g., clinical evaluations) are likely to be used more in some disciplines than in others. At the program level, we can gather as­ sessment data from assessments embedded in courses or design additional assessments that we administer outside of courses.

Indirect assessments of learning include self-report measures such as sur­ veys distributed to students which can be used both in courses and at the pro­ gram and institutional levels. (Designing measures for gathering feedback from students in courses is discussed in Chapter 5 of this book.) Other indi­ rect measures used in program or institutional assessment, although not a focus of this book, include surveys of graduates or employers in which re­ spondents share their perceptions about what graduates know or can do with their knowledge.

12 Chapter 1

Both direct and indirect assessment measures should be chosen to provide accurate and useful information for making decisions about learning. In order to do so, they must evaluate the type of learning we desire in our students. For this reason, in this book there will be little discussion of tests comprised of ob­ jectively scored paper and pencil test items like multiple-choice and true-false. Many of us use these types of items heavily because they can be easily scored­ even by machine--and we rely on the scores that result as the primary con­ tributors to students' final grades. This type of evaluation is appealing because we can collect information efficiently and the results seem easy to interpret.

However, these items typically test only factual knowledge. It is possible to write multiple-choice and true-false items that go beyond checking recall of facts to measure higher-order thinking, and items that do so appear on standardized tests prepared by professional test developers at companies like the Educational Testing Service. However, when objectively scored items are written by individuals without professional training in test development, they tend to focus on factual knowledge .

Another criticism of objectively scored test items is that they assess knowledge bit by bit, item by item, typically with no reference to any even­ tual real-world application (Resnick & Resnick, 1992). They are only indirect indicators of more complex abilities such as reasoning about cutting-edge is­ sues or using information to solve important problems in a particular field . Furthermore, objectively scored tests always have a right answer. For these reasons, when we use them, we send students the message that it is impor­ tant to master isolated facts and skills and to always know the right answers.

However, the challenges faced by adults in general and by professionals in particular fields tend to be those that require the simultaneous coordina­ tion and integration of many aspects of knowledge and skill in situations with few right answers. As Howard Gardner (1991) pOints out, the ability to take objectively scored tests successfully is a useless skill as soon as one grad­ uates from college. The rest of one's life, he says, is a series of projects.

The perspective of this book is that, in leamer-centered teaching, we should design "assessments" to evaluate students' ability to think critically and use their knowledge to address enduring and emerging issues and prob­ lems in their disciplines. We define an assessment in the following way:

An assessment is an activity, assigned by the professor, that yields compre­ hensive information for analyzing, discussin g, and judging a learner's per­ formance of valued abilities and skills.

This book discusses the development and use of assessments like pro­ jects, papers, performances, portfolios, or exhibitions that evaluate higher­ order thinking and require students to directly reveal the very abilities that professors desire. Sometimes these are referred to as authentic assessments

13 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

because of their intrinsic value (Wiggins, 1989); at other times, they are re­ ferred to as performance assessments because they require students to demonstrate their learning. At still other times, they are termed qualitative as­ sessments because they allow us to evaluate the nature and quality of stu­ dents' work. Further, our scoring is based on subjective judgment using criteria we develop, rather than on an answer key that permits us to objec­ tively sum correct answers. Whatever they are called, these assessments are effective tools for assessing mastery of factual knowledge, but more impor­ tantly, for finding out if students can use their knowledge effectively to rea­ son and solve problems.

For those of us who would like to continue using objectively scored tests, several excellent resources are available (e.g., Airasian, 1994; Brookhart, 1999; Gronlund & Linn, 1990; Payne, 1997; Stiggins, 1994; Thorndike, Curming­ ham, Thorndike, & Hagen, 1991). These books include guidelines for writing effective test items, and they give examples of items that measure more than recall of facts.

Reflections

As you create your own meaning from • Which of our measures are indirect the ideas in this section, begin to think assessments of learning? about . .. • In what ways do I assess factual

knowledge? • How successfully have faculty in • How heavily do I use objectively

my program worked together to scored test items that I select from develop and implement a plan for publishers' testbanks or that I collecting assessment data focused write myself? on our learning outcomes? How • In what ways do I assess students' could we work together to do this? ability to use their knowledge as

• Which of our measures are direct they reason and solve problems? assessments of learning?

Creating Experiences Leading to Outcomes

The third element in the assessment process is ensuring that students have ex­ periences both in and outside their courses that help them achieve the in­ tended learning outcomes. If we expect students to achieve our intended outcomes, we must provide them with opportunities to learn what they need to learn. We should design the curriculum as a set of interrelated courses and experiences that will help students achieve the intended learning outcomes.

Students' learning will be affected by the way courses and other required experiences like independent studies, practica, and internships are organized

14 Chapter 1

in the curriculum and the order in which they are taken. The appropriateness of the prerequisite courses we designate will also influence how well students learn. Designing the curriculum by working backward from learning out­ comes helps make the curriculum a coherent "story of learning" (Plater, 1998, p.11).

Orchestrating stages in the skill development of students is also part of curriculum development. Where in the curriculum will students learn and practice skills like writing, speaking, teamwork, and problem solving? What teaching strategies will faculty use to help students develop these skills, and how will professors give feedback to students on their progress? Will all pro­ fessors be responsible for these skills? Will the skills be addressed only in the general education component of the curriculum? Will some courses through­ out the course of study be targeted as "intensives" (e.g., writing intensive, problem solving intensive, etc.)? All of these questions are curriculum ques­ tions that are central to an assessment program.

As we develop or revise the curriculum, we should include activities and experiences that will help students acquire the knowledge, skills, and under­ standing that each of our learning outcomes requires. Conversely, we should scrutinize each of the activities and experiences that we create in our courses and programs and ask ourselves, "How will this help students achieve the in­ tended learning outcomes of the institution, program, or course?"

Reflections

As you create your own meaning from • How could we change our ap­ the ideas in this section, begin to think proach to curricular design and re­ about . .. vision so that we focus more on

helping students achieve intended • To what extent do my faculty col­ learning outcomes?

leagues and I design and revise • How could we help students de­ curriculum with learning outcomes velop more effective skills? in mind?

Discussing and Using Assessment Results to Improve Learning

The fourth element is a process for discussing and using the assessment re­ sults to improve learning. Within courses, these discussions take place be­ tween us and our students, and the focus is on using the results to improve individual student performance. At the program or institutional level, dis­ cussions take place among the faculty as a whole.

15 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

Through our discussions of assessment results, we gain insights into the type of learning occurring in the program, and we are better able to make in­ formed decisions about needed program changes. We understand what stu­ dents can do well and in what areas they have not succeeded. We raise questions about the design of the curriculum or about the teaching strategies we use (Walvoord, Bardes, & Denton, 1998). We also develop a better under­ standing of how to assess learning in a useful manner.

In order to seek additional perspectives, we should share summaries of the process with key stakeholder groups (e.g., students, alumni, advisory groups) who may also provide insights about whether changes are needed in the program's intended learning outcomes, in the curriculum, in teaching strategies used by faculty, or in assessment techniques used. In this stage of the process, we reveal the nature and process of a college education to a broad audience, and we help build trust for institutions of higher education .

With information from the assessment itself as well as the perspectives of students, alumni, advisory groups and others, we can proceed to recorrunend and implement changes that will improve both the curriculum and the teach­ ing taking place in the program. As discussed in Chapter 3, assessment data should also be used to inform processes like planning and resource allocation, catalog revision, and program review.

Reflections

As you create your own meaning from and their implications for learn­ the ideas in th is section, begin to think ing? about . .. • What stakeholder groups would

be interested in knowing about • When and with whom have I learning in my courses and pro­

discussed assessment findings gram?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ASSESSMENT MOVEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Our role as faculty in assuming primary ownership for assessing academic programs is critical. We are responsible for developing the intended learning outcomes of our academic programs, for developing the curricula on which the programs are based, and for delivering the curricula through our teach­ ing. It naturally follows that we should be responsible for building quality into the programs through evaluating the learning that takes place within them.

16 Chapter 1

Assuming the responsibility for assessment provides us with several op­ portunities. One is the opportunity to ask important questions about the value and effectiveness of our instructional programs. Another is the oppor­ tunity to engage in conversations about student learning with each other. The final opportunity is to use data about student learning to strengthen the way decisions are made, leading to improvement in the curriculum and in in­ struction .

However, many faculty have been reluctant to engage in assessment be­ cause, in some states or regions of the country, assessment has been intro­ duced as a requirement by external agencies such as legislatures or regional or specialized accreditation associations. The reasons for this can be traced historically .

Changing Resources and the Seeds of Reform

The post-war period of the 1950s and 1960s was a time of expansion in higher education (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976). "The enrollment [sic] of World War II veterans created the most rapid growth of colleges and universities in the his­ tory of higher education" (Henry, 1975, p. 55). Between 1955 and 1970, the number of students pursuing academic degrees tripled (Henry, 1975, p. 101). Generous support from federal and state governrnents helped institutions keep pace, culminating in the Johnson years, "golden ones for all of education and not the least for higher education" (Pusey, 1978, p. 109). During this time, the value of a college education was assumed, and universities functioned in a relatively autonomous fashion. There was little need to reveal to external audiences what was happening in college classrooms.

However, by the 1970s, higher education was in a grave financial crisis. Resources available to higher education could not keep pace with rising costs and inflation . Large private donations to institutions, common in the first half of the century, had declined sharply; inflation had reduced institutional income, and it had become increasingly difficult to raise tuition to offset costs and still maintain access to a college education (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976) . Politicians were faced with the increasing need to fund welfare, hospitals, prisons (Erwin, 1991), schools, highways, and public utilities (Henry, 1975).

In addition, by the 1970s, the population of students attending college had become more diverse . As the goal of a college education for all became more widespread, college faculties were faced with challenges they had never experienced before. Concerns that college graduates did not have the skills and abilities needed in the workplace surfaced. The public and the politicians who represented them began to question the value of higher education. A movement to bring about reform in higher education-and education at all levels-began (Ewell, 1991).

17 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

As a result, in 1984 and 1985 alone, four reports were issued addressing the need for reform on the college campus (Ewell, 1991): Access to Quality Un­ dergraduate Education (Southern Regional Education Board, 1985), Integrity in the College Curriculum (Association of American Colleges, 1985), Involvement in Learning (National Institute of Education, 1984), and To Reclaim a Legacy (Bennett, 1984). These reports received less attention than A Nation at Risk, the report that triggered the reform movement in elementary and secondary schools. However, according to Ewell, their messages were clear and strong: instruction in higher education must become learner-centered, and learners, faculty, and institutions all need feedback in order to improve.

Calls for Accountability

In some states, politicians assumed the responsibility for initiating reform. A number of legislatures (e.g., Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Mis­ souri, Ohio, Tennessee) have implemented performance funding programs, and although many such programs have floundered, additional states con­ tinue to consider this approach (Ewell, 1998; Serb an, 1998). In performance funding, some portion of the public monies earmarked for higher education are allocated to institutions based on institutional ability to meet performance targets like retention rates, graduation rates, or demonstrations of student learning.

For example, the Tennessee legislature mandated that institutions pre­ and post-test students, with incentive funding following, based on improve­ ments (Astin, 1993). Florida instituted a "rising junior" test at its public insti­ tutions in order to ensure that students were prepared to enter the upper division or receive an associate in arts degree. However, the test was not sen­ sitive to institutional differences and needs, but rather was a common in­ strument for use at all state-funded institutions and was developed by faculty members from across the state (Astin, 1993; McCabe, 1988).

In part to curtail the direct involvement of state legislatures in higher education, regional accreditation agencies---organizations comprised of institutions of higher education themselves-became involved. Accredita­ tion agencies declared that they would require member institutions to con­ duct outcomes assessment in order to maintain their status as accredited institutions.

For example, in 1989, the Commission on Institutions of Higher Educa­ tion of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools introduced the requirement that every affiliated institution conduct outcomes assessment (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, 1996). This was one of the few times in its IOO-year history that the organization established a program and required every affiliated institution to give evidence within a

18 Chapter 1

limited period of time of making a good faith effort to implement it (5. Crow, personal communication, October 29, 1998). As time passed, specialized accrediting bodies-those that accredit professional programs rather than institutions (e.g., business, veterinary medicine, engineering, counseling, architecture)-also began to adopt an outcomes approach to program evaluation.

The Continuous Improvement Movement

Another factor influencing the assessment movement was the continuous improvement movement. Just as higher education was influenced by the business processes of long-range planning in the late 1970s and strategic planning in the mid-1980s, it was influenced in the late 1980s by the use of quality principles and practices. American businesses become involved in quality improvement because of the intense competition resulting from the introduction of better products from foreign countries. Likewise, colleges and universities pursued continuous improvement because of competition for students, the need to reduce costs and improve quality of services, and the desire to enhance learning. The introduction of quality improvement in higher education paralleled the development of the assessment movement, and the two initiatives have much in common.

W. E. Deming is recognized as one of the founders of the quality im­ provement movement. He believed that continuous improvement is the path to improved quality, greater productivity (less rework and more efficiency), and reduced cost (Deming, 1986). Deming's Fourteen Points (1986), the most cited set of principles for continuous improvement, have been reframed for other settings, one of which is education (Cornesky, 1993, 1994; Greenwood & Gaunt, 1994). Figure 1-4 outlines the original Fourteen Points according to Deming. Figure 1-5 presents one example of how Deming's interpretation of quality improvement has been adapted for education.

Gathering data for informed decision making is at the heart of Deming's philosophy of improvement. Deming advocated cross-functional teamwork and partnerships by stressing that barriers must be removed so that people can work together effectively and creatively. Deming believed that people need to have pride in what they do. Therefore, he encouraged education, professional development, and personal self-improvement for everyone (Deming, 1986).

At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 19905, the quality move­ ment in higher education was relatively new and existed only on the fringes of campus concerns. Research reveals that even though continuous improve­ ment started and has made more progress on the administrative side of most

19 Experiencing a Paradi~ Shift Through Assessment

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service. 2. Adopt the new philosophy and take on leadership for change. 3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality by building quality into the

product in the first place. 4. Develop long-term relationships of loyalty and trust with suppliers. 5. Constantly improve systems and processes. 6. Institute training on the job. 7. Institute leadership-the aim of supervision should be to help people do a

better job. 8. Drive out fear so that everyone may work effectively. 9. Break down barriers between departments-people must work as a team.

10. Eliminate zero-defect work targets and slogans. Recognize that the causes of low quality and productivity belong to the system, thus lying beyond the power of the workforce.

11. Eliminate numerical quotas and management by objective, substituting leadership instead.

12. Remove barriers to pride of workmanship. 13. Promote education and self-improvement. 14. Involve everyone in accomplishing the transformation.

(Reprinted from Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming by permiSSion of MIT and The W. Ed­ wards Deming Institute. Published by v[IT, Center for Advanced Educational Services, Cam­ bridge, MA 02139. Copyright 1'186 by The W. Edwards Deming Institute.)

fiGURE 1-4 Abbreviated Statement of W. Edwards Deming's Fourteen Points for Continuous Improvement

institutions, its principles are becoming increasingly used on the academic side to improve learning and teaching (Freed & Klugman, 1997; Schnell, 1996).

Improvement as Accountability

The preceding discussion illustrates the fact that assessment is a movement that began outside the academy in order to make institutions more account­ able to external constituencies. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the best way for institutions to be accountable to any audience is to in­ corporate the evaluation of student learning into the way they operate on a regular basis. When faculty collectively take charge of their educational pro­ grams, making visible their purpose and intent, and putting in place a data­ based system of evaluation that focuses on improving student learning, the institution itself is the primary beneficiary while external audiences are sat­ isfied as well.

20 Chapter 1

1. Pursue continuous improvement of curriculum and learning diligently and constantly.

2. Adopt the system of profound knowledge in your classroom and [institutiun] as the prime management tool.

3. Build quality into teaching and learning and reduce the inspection of quality into work after the event.

4. Build a partnership relationship with colleagues, students, and ... employers. 5. Constantly improve the system within which teaching/learning takes place. 6. Take every opportunity to train in new skills and to learn from your pupils. 7. Lead-do not drive or manipulate. 8. Drive out fear of punishment-create joy in learning. 9. Collaborate with colleagues from other departments and functions .

10. Conununicate honestly, not through jargon and slogans. 11. So far as possible create a world without grades and rank order. 12. Encourage and celebrate to develop your students' pride in work. 13. Promote the development of the whole person in students and colleagues. 14. Wed your students to learning by the negotiation with them of a quality

experience.

[From Greenwood & Gaunt, Total Quality Mana$\ement for Schools (London: Cassell plc). Source: W. E. Deming, 'Out of Crisis,' 1982 (adapted to ~chuol rather than manufacturing context by L. Richelou and M. S. Greenwood) .]

FIGURE 1-5 Deming's Fourteen Points Adapted for Education

Reflections

As you create your own meaning fr om the ideas in this section, begin to think about.

• How have these factors affected faculty knowledge about assess­ ment?

• How have the historical factors lead ing to the assessment move­ ment influenced my environment?

• How have these factors affected faculty attitude toward assessment?

21 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

ASSESSMENT AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

In its report, Making Quality Count in Undergraduate Education, the Education Commission ofthe States proposed twelve quality attributes of good practice in delivering an undergraduate education (1995). "Extensive research on American college students reveals . .. that when colleges and universities systematically engage in these good practices, student performance and sat­ isfaction will improve" (Education Commission of the States, 1996, p. 5) . Shown in Figure 1-6, these attributes address aspects of an institution's or­ ganizational culture and values, its curriculum, and the type of instruction that takes place within it (Education Commission of the States, 1996).

One of the attributes is "assessment and prompt feedback," and it is in­ cluded in the list as an intrinsic element of quality instruction. However, we believe that learner-centered assessment, as discussed in this book, promotes or enhances all the attributes of quality that are listed in Figure 1- 6. Assess-

Quality begins with an organizational culture that values:

1. High expectations 2. Respect for diverse talents and learning styles 3. Emphasis on the early years of study

A quality curriculum requires:

4. Coherence in learning 5. Synthesizing experiences 6. Ongoing practice of learned skills 7. Integrating education and experience

Quality instruction builds in:

8. Active learning 9. Assessment and prompt feedback

10. Collaboration 11. Adequate time on task 12. Out-of-class contact with faculty

(Education Commission of the States, 1995, 1996)

FIGURE 1-6 Attributes of Quality Undergraduate Education: What the Research Says

22 Chapter 1

ment can thus be a powerful tool for improving--even transforming-un­ dergraduate education (Angelo, 1999).

In the following sections, we briefly point out ways in which learner-cen­ tered assessment supports the attributes of a quality undergraduate educa­ tion. Chapter 2 provides a more extended discussion in its review of the hallmarks of learner-centered teaching and assessment.

Learner-Centered Assessment Promotes High Expectations

"Students learn more effectively when expectations for learning are placed at high but attainable levels, and when these expectations are comm1ll1icated clearly from the onset" (Education Com.n:Ussion of the States, 1996, p. 5). Learner-centered assessment clearly supports the principle of high expectations. In a learner-centered assessment environment, students are aware of the fac­ ulty's intended learning outcomes before instruction begins. They thus know what we expect them to know, understand, and be able to do with their knowl­ edge. We give them challenging assessment tasks to evaluate their achievement, and using scoring rubrics, we describe for them the characteristics that are pre­ sent in excellent work. These characteristics derive from the standards to which we hold educated people and practicing professionals in their disciplines.

Learner-Centered Assessment Respects Diverse Talents and Learning Styles

In learner-centered assessment, assessment tasks are designed so that stu­ dents can complete them effectively in many different ways. There is not just one right answer, but rather students have the opportunity to do excellent work that reflects their own unique way of implementing their abilities and skills.

Learner-Centered Assessment Enhances the Early Years of Study

"A consensus is emerging that the first years of undergraduate study-par­ ticularly the freshman year-are critical to student success" (Education Com­ mission of the States, 1996, p. 6). Learner-centered assessment enhances the first year of study by engaging students in meaningful intellectual work and helping them discover connections between what they learn in college and the ways in which they will use their knowledge in society or the professions after graduation. This is accomplished by designing assessment tasks that de­ rive from challenging real-world problems and call upon students to use and extend their skills in critical thinking and problem solving.

23 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

Learner-Centered Assessment Promotes Coherence in Learning

Students should be presented with a set of learning experiences that consist ofmore than merely a required number of courses or credit hours. Instead, the curriculum should be structured in a way that sequences individual courses to reinforce specific outcomes and consciously directs instruction toward meeting those ends (Education Commission of the States, 1996, pp. 6-7).

Learner-centered assessment promotes a coherent curriculum by pro­ viding data to guide the curriculum development and revision process. If we want to know whether the curriculum as a whole or the experiences in indi­ vidual courses are coherent to students, we can ask for their opinions di­ rectly. In learner-centered assessment, students give us feedback on their learning in a continual fashion, suggesting ways in which instruction and the curriculum can be improved to help achieve our intended learning outcomes. In addition, through assessment that takes place at the program level, as well as in courses, we can find out what students have learned well and in what areas they need to improve. The resulting information provides direction for curricular improvement.

Learner-Centered Assessment Synthesizes Experiences, Fosters Ongoing Practice of Learned Skills, and Integrates Education and Experience

Learner-centered assessment tasks frequently take the form of projects, papers, exhibitions, and so forth, in which students synthesize the knowledge, abilities, and skills they have learned in the general education curriculum, in their major field, and in their course experiences. These assessments also focus on using knowledge to address issues and problems that are important in students' cho­ sen disciplines. Critical thinking, problem solving, and written and oral com­ munication are the vehicles through which students employ their knowledge in the pursuit of important goals in the assessment tasks we give them.

Learner-Centered Assessment Actively Involves Students in Learning and Promotes Adequate Time on Task

All of the forms of learner-centered assessment we have discussed require ac­ tive learning. Assessment tasks like projects, papers, and so on cannot be com­ pleted in a 50-minute time period. They actively involve students in learning over a period of several days or weeks. During this time, we can structure in­ class activities to help students acquire the knowledge and skills they need to complete the assessment task. In this way, students are continually focused on achieving the intended learning outcomes of the course and program.

24 Chapter 1

Learner-Centered Assessment Provides Prompt Feedback

When students are completing the assessments we have discussed in this chapter, we can assess their learning as it takes place and provide revelant feedback to guide the process. A major theme of this book is that learners can­ not learn anything without feedback. Feedback is part and parcel of learner­ centered assessment, whether students are giving feedback to us or we are giving feedback to them. Both types of feedback improve student learning, and this book emphasizes strategies to make feedback both timely and useful.

Learner-Centered Assessment Fosters Collaboration

"Students learn better when engaged in a team effort rather than working on their own . . . it is the way the world outside the academy works" (Education Commission of the States, 1996, p. 8). Unlike conventional tests which stu­ dents complete silently and alone-and which are often graded on a com­ petitive basis-leamer-centered assessments provide opportunities for students to work together and develop their skills in teamwork and cooper­ ation. As students talk about what they know and what they are learning, their knowledge and understanding deepen.

Learner-Centered Assessment Depends on Increased Student-Faculty Contact

In learner-centered assessment, we guide and coach students as they learn to do important things worth doing. We give students feedback on their learn­ ing, and we seek feedback from students about how to improve the learning environment. Through the use of portfolios and other self-evaluation activi­ ties, we and our students confer together about students' progress toward the intended learning outcomes of the program. This increases contact between us and our students both in and outside the classroom.

Reflections

As you create your own meaning from dergraduate education are present the ideas in this section, begin to think in my courses and my program? about . .. • Which attributes would I most like

to enhance? • Which attributes of a quality un­

25 Experiencin~ a Paradigm Sh ift Thro ugh Assessment

LEARNER-CENTERED ASSESSMENT AND TIME

Using learner-centered assessment may be more time consuming than pre­ vious approaches, particularly in the beginning. We will need to take time to confer with our colleagues about fundamental issues like learning out­ comes and the coherence of the curriculum. Initially, this will require an extra inveshnent of time and energy as we attempt "to transcend the privacy of our own courses, syllabi, or student programs, let alone our departments, divisions, or schools" (Plater, 1998, p. 13). In our courses, when we try new techniques, we will undoubtedly spend more time analyzing and question­ ing our past approach to pedagogy and evaluating the new techniques we employ.

We will also discover that our institutions are structured to accommodate the traditional paradigm (Barr, 1998). It takes time and effort to implement a new approach when factors like schedules, room arrangements, reward sys­ tems---even the structures of our buildings-have been designed to make the traditional paradigm work efficiently.

Helping students change paradigms will take time as well (Warren, 1997). As we create new learning environments and use new teaching strate­ gies, we will have to guide students to understand new ways of learning.

However, as we, our colleagues, and our students become more familiar and comfortable with learner-centered strategies, the overall time spent on teaching will probably decrease to former levels . We may have to learn to use time more efficiently and effectively at faculty meetings so that we can find the time we need to confer about issues related to learning and assessment on a continuing basis.

In our courses, as Figure 1-7 shows, we will learn to spend time differently than we have in the past. When we prepare to teach, we will continue to keep up-to-date in our disciplines. However, we will spend more time developing materials to facilitate learning and less time organizing presentations of in­ formation or constructing objectively scored tests .

Preparing to facilitate learning rather than lecture about what we know involves designing an approach to teaching that allows students to create their own understanding of the material. We will need to find time to develop materials like statements of intended learning outcomes, questions to guide student discussion of assigned readings, activities that involve students ac­ tively in their learning, criteria describing the characteristics of excellent work to use in grading, and assessments that promote enhanced learning.

Facilitating learning rather than imparting information may require the development of new teaching techniques as well. We may have to learn to ask questions that guide student thinking, to facilitate student discussion in ways that lead to increased understanding, to coach students as they work in pairs

26 Chapter 1

Teacher-Centered Learner-Centered Paradigm Paradigm

Preparing to teach

Keeping up-to-date Developing materials to facilitate learning Preparing a presentation of information Developing objectively scored tests to monitor learning efficiently

Teaching

Facilitating learning Imparting information Giving feedback to improve learning

Following up

Examining grade distributions to monitor learning Using student input to improve the course

+++ +++ +++

++++ +

+++

+++ ++++ +

+++

+++ +++

FIGURE 1-7 Allocation of Professor's Time/Effort/Emphasis in Teacher­ Centered and Learner-Centered Paradigms

or groups, and to coordinate in-class student activities. We will have to learn to share our learning outcomes with students and to devote time to periodic discussions of the progress students are making in achieving them. We should seek student input as we develop grading criteria, eliciting students' ideas about the characteristics of excellent work and sharing our ideas as well.

In a learner-centered environment, we will spend more time using these public criteria to discuss students' work with them and evaluate it at various stages of development. The need to monitor how well our students are doing by studying grade distributions will be replaced by more direct involvement in helping students improve their work.

Finally, in each course, we will need to seek and review student feedback about how well the course is helping students to learn and then spend the time to make adjustments that will enhance the learning environment. The payoff of better prepared students justifies the time it takes to make the trans­ formation from teacher-centered to learner-centered practices.

27 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

more time if I became more leamer­ centered?

Reflections

As you create your own meaning from • On which practices would I spend the ideas in this section, begin to think less time if I became more learner­ about . . . centered?

• What ch aracteristics of my institu­ • On which of the practices in FigLUe tion would interfere with a learner­

1-7 do I spend the most time? centered approach? • On which practices would I spend

LOOKING AHEAD

In Chapter 2, we will discuss several hallmarks of leamer-centered teaching and assessment. We will provide examples, as well as an opportunity to ex­ amine our own teaching practices in terms of the traditional vs. leamer-cen­ tered paradigms. Chapter 3 examines several guidelines and practices that will foster the development of strong assessment programs on college cam­ puses, th ereby providing a foundation for refocusing the campus culture on learning rather than teaching .

Chapters 4 through 8 address several specific techniques for assessing student learning in a learner-centered environment: formulating intended learning outcomes (Chapter 4), gathering feedback from students to contin­ ually guide improvement in courses (Chapter 5), developing criteria for shap­ ing and judging student work in the form of scoring rubrics (Chapter 6), designing assessments that promote and evaluate students' ability to think critically, solve problems, and use their discipline related knowledge (Chap­ ter 7), and using portfolios to understand what and how students learn (Chapter 8). In Chapter 9, we discuss the implications for both us and our in­ stitutions of making the shift to a learner-centered paradigm.

TRY SOMETHING NEW

As authors, we have tried to design this book using current principles of learning. One of these principles is that individuals learn best when they have opportunities to examine what they already know about a topic before they encounter new information. This fosters deep learning by helping learn­ ers prepare to make connections between current and new knowledge . For this reason, we begin each chapter of this book with a series of questions en­ titled Making Connections.

28 Chapter 1

We have also referred to the fact that adults learn best when they have opportunities to reflect upon their current knowledge and practice in the light of new information. Throughout this chapter, as well as the others in this book, we have provided opportunities for reflection in the several series of questions entitled Reflections.

A final aspect of the book is the opportunity at the end of each chapter to Try Something New. We suggest that you review your answers to the ques­ tions in the Making Connections and Reflections sections in this chapter. Then pursue one or more of the suggested activities below to begin shifting from teaching to learning.

1. Read an article from this chapter and identify three points that have im­ plications for yo ur teaching.

2. Invite a colleague to lunch and bring along a copy of Figure 1-2. Discuss together those features of your teaching that could be considered ele­ ments of the traditional paradigm and those that could be considered learner-centered.

3. Make a list of all the ways that you assess learning in your courses. Dis­ cuss your assessment approach with a colleague and seek his/her reac­ tions.

4. Find out what your institution is doing to support the shHt from teach­ ing to learning, as well as to establish an assessment culture on campus.

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R. L. (1995, June). The challenges of change and the need for systems thinking. Paper presented at the AAHE Conference on Assessment and Quality, Boston, Massa­ chusetts.

Airasian, P. W. (1994). Classroom assessment (2nd ed.) . New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Angelo, T. A. (1999, May). Doing assessment as if learning matters most. AAHE Bul­

le tin, 3--6. Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to

the academic community. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges. Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993). Assessment for excellence. Phuenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Banta, T. W. , Lund, J. P., Black, K. F., & Oblander, F. W. (1996). Assessment in practice:

Putting principles to work on college campuses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Barker, J. A. (1992). Paradigms: The business of discovering the future. New York: Harper

Business. Barr, R. B. (1998, September-October). Obstacles tu implementing the learning para­

digm-What it takes to overcome them. Aboul Campus, 18--25. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995, November I December) . Fwm teaching to learning: A new

paradigm for und ergrad uate education. Change, 13-25. Bennett, W. J. (1984) . To reclaim a legacy: A report 011 the humanities in higher education.

Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Humanities.

29 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

Bligh, D. A. (1972). What's the use of lectures? Baltimore: Penguin Books. Bonstingl, J. J. (1992). The total quality classroom. Educational Leadership, 49 (6) ,

66-70 . Bonstingl, J. J. (1996). Schools of quality. Alexandria, V A: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development. Boyatzis, Cowen, Kolb, & Associates. (1995). Inno vation in professional education . San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brookhart, S. M. (1999). The art and science of classroom assessment: The missing part of

pedagogy. (ASHE-ERlC Higher Education Report: Vol. 27, No 1). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1976). Higher education in transition (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row .

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bulletin, 3-7.

Commission on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association. (1996, February 22) . Commission statement on assessment of student academic achieve­ ment. Chicago: North Central Association .

Cornesky, R. (1993) . The quality professor: Implementing TQM in the classroom. Madison, WI: Magna Publications.

Cornesky, R. (1994). Quality classroom practices for professors. Port Orange, FL: Cor­ nesky & Associates.

Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster. Creed, T. (Winter 1986). Why we lecture. Symposium: A Saint John 's Faculty Journal , 5,

17-32. Cross, K P. (1993, February-March). Involving faculty in TQM . AACC Journal, 15-20. Cross, K. P. (1996, March-April). New lenses on learning. About Campus, 4--9. Cross, K. P. (1998, July-August). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campu s,

4--11. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study . Duffy, D. K , & Jones, J. W. (1995) . Teaching within the rhythms of the semester. San Fran­

cisco: Jossey-Bass. Education Commission of the States. (1995). Making quality count in undergraduate ed­

ucatio n. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Education Commission of the States. (1996, April). What research says about improv­

ing undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 5-8. Eison, J. , & Bonwell, C. (1988, March). Makinx real the promise of active learning. Paper

presented at the meeting of the American Association for Higher Education , Washington, DC.

Engelkemeyer, S. W., & Brown, S. C. (1998, October). Powerful partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. AAHE Bulletin, 10-12 .

Erickson, S. C. (1984). The essence ofgood teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Erwin, T. D. (1991). Assessing student learning and development. San Francisco: Jossey­

Bass. Ewell, P. T. (1991) . To capture the ineffable: New forms of assessment in higher edu­

cation. In G. Grant, (Ed.). Review of Research in Education, 17, 75-125. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Associati on.

30 Chapter 1

Ewell, P. T. (1998, May-June). From the states-implementing performance funding in Washington state: Some new takes on an old problem. Assessment Update , 10 (3),7-8,13.

Freed, J. E., & Klugman, M . R. (1997). Quality principles and practices in higher education: Different questions for different times. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and The Oryx Press.

Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.

Greenwood, M. S., & Gaunt, H. J. (1994). Total quality management for schools. London: Cassell.

Gronlund, N. E., & Linn, R. L. (J 990). Mea surement and evaluation in teachin:? (6th ed.). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Guskin, A (1997, Ju ly-August). Learning more, spending less. About Campus, 4--9. Hake!, M. D. (1997, July-August). What we must learn from Alverno. About Campus,

16-21. Henry, D. D. (1975). Challenges past, challenges present: An analysis of American higher ed­

ucation since 1930. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Joint Task Force on Student Learning. (1998a). Learning principles and collaborative ac­

tion. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Joint Task Force on Student Learning . (1998b). Powerful partnerships: A sh.ared responsi­

bility for /earnin:? Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. http://vvww.aahe.org, http://www.acpa.nche.edu, or http: // www.naspa.org

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1997). Re­ turning to our roots: The student experience . Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. http://www.nasulgc.org

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1999). Re­ turning to our roots: The engaged institution. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. http: //www.nasulgc.org

King, P. M. , & Kitchencr, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual :?ro wth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Fran­ cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kleinsasser, A M. (1995, March i April). Assessment culture and national testing. The Clearing Hous e, 205-210.

Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learn­ ing organizations. American Management Association, 5--23.

Lynch, R. F. (1991, April). Shedding the shackles of George Patton , Henry Ford , and firs t-grade teachers . Quality Progress, 64.

McCabe, R. H. (1988). The assessment movement: What next? Who cares? In J. S. Stark & A Thomas, (Eds.), Assessment and program evaluation (pp. 199-203). ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.

National Institute of Education, Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education . (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing th.e potential of American higher education. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Palomba, C. A, & Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Payne, D. A (1997). Applied educational assessment. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Plater, W. M. (1998, November-December). So ... Why aren't we taking learning seri­

ously? About Campus, 9-14.

31 Experiencing a Paradigm Shift Through Assessment

Pusey, N. M . (1978). American higher education: 1945- 1970. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Resnick, L., & Resnick, D. (1992) . Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for ed­ ucational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement and instruction (pp. 37-75). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schnell, M. S. (1996, April). Could collaboration be on the horizon? AAHE Bulletin, 15-17.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday /C urrency.

Serban, A. (1998, March-April). The performance funding wave: Views of state poli­ cymakers and campus leaders. Assessment Update, 10 (2),1-2,10--11.

Southern Regional Education Board. (1985). Access to quality undergraduate education: A report to the Southern Regional Education Board by its Commission for Educational Quality. Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

Stiggins, R. J. (1994). Student-centered classroom assessment. New York: Merrill. Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1994, January /February). Living with myths: Un­

dergraduate education in America. Change, 28-30. Thorndike, R. M., Cunningham, G. K., Thorndike, R. L. , & Hagen, E. P. (1991).

Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (5th ed.). New York: MacMillan.

Walvoord, B. E., Bardes, B., & Denton, J. (1998, September-October). Closing the feed­ back loop in classroom-based assessment. Assessment Update, 10 (5), 1-2, 10--11.

Warren, R. G. (1997, March-April). Engaging students in active learning. About Cam­ pus, 16--20.

Wiggins, G. (1989, May). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assess­ ment. Phi Delta Kappan, 703-713.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design . Alexandria, VA: Associa­ tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.