I was recently appointed as co-chair of my institution's Periodic Review Report (PRR) committee for Middle States accreditation, which is a unique opportunity as a librarian. As such, I've become more interested in issues related to accreditation, and in particular librarians' roles in this process.
This article in the New York Times highlights for me the importance of maintaining peer-reviewed accreditation processes in our non-profit colleges and universities. While these for-profit institutions may be well-meaning (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) running a high-quality institution of higher education involves a complex network of processes of which most people not working in higher education (and probably many who ARE working in higher ed) are unaware. Nevertheless, state accrediting agencies are being criticized for not "more aggressively monitoring substandard institutions." The sad thing is, the victims of the financial fraud of which these "for-profit colleges" are being accused, are often the most vulnerable -- low-income and minority students.
What can we as librarians contribute to maintaining integrity and quality assurance in higher education? A few things that come to mind are providing research-based evidence for curriculum quality, helping students assess their marketability based on career trends and data, and, in general, teaching people to be critical users of information -- including financial aid information -- that can help them make good choices regarding the institutions in which they enroll. The expression, "If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is," could apply here.
Showing posts with label assessment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assessment. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Monday, February 6, 2012
College Scorecard?
The White House is trying to create a "scorecard" to help families determine the "affordability and value" of prospective colleges. As of now, the scorecard looks very limiting and misleading, in my opinion: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/scorecard
Fortunately, they are looking for feedback. I understand that the types of statistics they are using for this scorecard are easy to gather, and seemingly can create a picture of a college's affordability and value; however, suggesting that each individual student's experience will be the same or even close to the same as the "average" this data creates is very misleading. A student who attends a college with a high percentage of at-risk or lower-achieving students could get an excellent education there if that college places a high value on teaching and learning effectiveness. The statistics at that college might look bleak, but a student with a lot of potential could take advantage of the high student-faculty ratio, the tutoring services, and leadership opportunities there, for example, to be very successful.
I appreciate the Government's efforts and intentions, but I fear that another shallow tool (shallower, in my opinion, than the U.S. News and World Report rankings that come out each year) will end up leading to "punishing" colleges that accept at-risk and low-income students, because they are worried about "raising their score" on this scorecard to get more applicants. There are so many factors that go into college value, and they vary greatly depending on the goals and purpose of the individual student attending. In general, though, I believe that looking at measures of the effectiveness of teaching and learning that takes place at a college -- particularly in the areas of critical thinking and information literacy -- can be a good measure of the college's value, no matter what the financial data might say.
Of course, this data is harder to capture. But just because data can be easily obtained does not mean that it should be used. It's like the expression, "You get what you pay for." Simplistic data leads to simplistic behaviors. Robust, qualitative data leads to robust, high-quality results -- but it is more complicated to gather and compile. Yet colleges and universities have been compiling this data for years, and in the last five years have been under a lot of pressure by accrediting agencies to compile even more. The data is there -- now it needs to be read and used accordingly to place real value on a college education.
Fortunately, they are looking for feedback. I understand that the types of statistics they are using for this scorecard are easy to gather, and seemingly can create a picture of a college's affordability and value; however, suggesting that each individual student's experience will be the same or even close to the same as the "average" this data creates is very misleading. A student who attends a college with a high percentage of at-risk or lower-achieving students could get an excellent education there if that college places a high value on teaching and learning effectiveness. The statistics at that college might look bleak, but a student with a lot of potential could take advantage of the high student-faculty ratio, the tutoring services, and leadership opportunities there, for example, to be very successful.
I appreciate the Government's efforts and intentions, but I fear that another shallow tool (shallower, in my opinion, than the U.S. News and World Report rankings that come out each year) will end up leading to "punishing" colleges that accept at-risk and low-income students, because they are worried about "raising their score" on this scorecard to get more applicants. There are so many factors that go into college value, and they vary greatly depending on the goals and purpose of the individual student attending. In general, though, I believe that looking at measures of the effectiveness of teaching and learning that takes place at a college -- particularly in the areas of critical thinking and information literacy -- can be a good measure of the college's value, no matter what the financial data might say.
Of course, this data is harder to capture. But just because data can be easily obtained does not mean that it should be used. It's like the expression, "You get what you pay for." Simplistic data leads to simplistic behaviors. Robust, qualitative data leads to robust, high-quality results -- but it is more complicated to gather and compile. Yet colleges and universities have been compiling this data for years, and in the last five years have been under a lot of pressure by accrediting agencies to compile even more. The data is there -- now it needs to be read and used accordingly to place real value on a college education.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Purpose--and Mis-Use--of Formative Assessment
This article from Education Week very simply and clearly explains what formative assessment is supposed to be, and how it is often misunderstood and misused.
A poignant point from the article: "[I]t’s not the test per se that is formative or summative. It is the use to which the test’s results are put."
This to me is one of the most important things to keep in mind. I have seen here at my institution "formative assessment" defined in such a way that the emphasis is on the assessment of the student progress rather than on how this data is being used to assess the effectiveness of the instruction. There is a big difference, but I think many educators (especially, I'd venture to say, those in higher education who do not necessarily have degrees in education fields) do not fully have this understanding. Giving quizzes or assignments throughout a course can be one means by which educators can employ formative assessment processes, but they are not the only, nor necessarily the most effective, means.
Regardless of the means by which formative assessment data is obtained, the purpose of formative assessment must be kept in mind: to evaluate whether or not teaching and learning activities are effective, and then to make changes accordingly to the lesson design and instructional methods. Formative assessment is a much more subtle, nuanced, and complicated process than simply monitoring students' quiz results or grades on assignments to assess their progress in class. It is what is done with these grades, quiz results, or other more informal assessment techniques (such as simply asking questions in class to gauge students' understanding at a given moment in time) that distinguishes formative assessment from summative assessment; the latter is for the purpose of evaluating what students have learned; the former is for evaluating how instruction or learning processes can be improved.
A poignant point from the article: "[I]t’s not the test per se that is formative or summative. It is the use to which the test’s results are put."
This to me is one of the most important things to keep in mind. I have seen here at my institution "formative assessment" defined in such a way that the emphasis is on the assessment of the student progress rather than on how this data is being used to assess the effectiveness of the instruction. There is a big difference, but I think many educators (especially, I'd venture to say, those in higher education who do not necessarily have degrees in education fields) do not fully have this understanding. Giving quizzes or assignments throughout a course can be one means by which educators can employ formative assessment processes, but they are not the only, nor necessarily the most effective, means.
Regardless of the means by which formative assessment data is obtained, the purpose of formative assessment must be kept in mind: to evaluate whether or not teaching and learning activities are effective, and then to make changes accordingly to the lesson design and instructional methods. Formative assessment is a much more subtle, nuanced, and complicated process than simply monitoring students' quiz results or grades on assignments to assess their progress in class. It is what is done with these grades, quiz results, or other more informal assessment techniques (such as simply asking questions in class to gauge students' understanding at a given moment in time) that distinguishes formative assessment from summative assessment; the latter is for the purpose of evaluating what students have learned; the former is for evaluating how instruction or learning processes can be improved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)