Qualitative Assessment: A Better Option for Small Departments

Most conversations about assessment methods tend to focus on whether they are direct or indirect, program-level or course-level, formative or summative.  Rarely does the discussion address whether a goal is best measured by quantitative or qualitative methods. 

Bresciani, Gardner, and Hickmott write that quantitative assessments have been the traditional favorites when it comes to measuring student outcomes.  Quantitative methods include test scores, rubric ratings, survey results, and performance indicators.  Linda Suskie asserts that quantitative methods are preferred over qualitative ones because accreditors and public audiences “find quantitative results more convincing” (page 32) and because people doing the assessments tend to be more comfortable or familiar with quantitative measures.  

The best assessment plan includes multiple, diverse methods, provided they are organic to the discipline and are reliable, authentic measures of student performance.   Michele Hanson advocates for a “combination of qualitative and quantitative assessment,” particularly if we want to gather evidence on the educational experience and learning opportunities we are providing.  Qualitative methods might be used to assess how well certain educational experiences promote student learning and success, while quantitative measures may be used to assess student accomplishment.  To examine evidence of student success without assessing the opportunities that promote or prohibit it is to overlook a critical element in the assessment narrative. 

That said, we do not live in the best of all possible worlds. As those who serve on the Academic Assessment Coordinating Committee have observed, quantitative methods may not be a good option for small programs with few majors.  It might take years, possibly even a decade, before small departments achieve a sample size large enough to determine trends or patterns.  Another problem is that using quantitative measures for small sample sizes does not produce reliable results.  One outstanding student will skew the results favorably; one poor student will have an adverse effect on results.

Qualitative assessment methods—notes from interviews or observations, reflective writings, focus groups, online or classroom discussions—may be the better option for smaller departments.  These types of methods are not lacking in merit.  Suskie argues that quantitative methods are “underused and underappreciated in many assessment circles” (page 32), and she further contends that they “can give us fresh insight and help discover problems—and solutions—that can’t be found through quantitative assessments alone” (page 33). 

If assessment is a way departments can tell their stories, then they need to use methods that make the most sense given the nature and scope of their discipline and the number of students enrolled in the major.  The assessment challenges faced by smaller departments  differ from those larger programs experience, so it makes sense that the solutions will differ as well. 

Works Cited

Bresciani, Marilee J., Megan Moore Gardner, and Jessica Hickmott.  

               Demonstrating Student Success: A Practical Guide to Outcomes-Based 

               Assessment of Learning and Development in Student Affairs. Sterling:  

               Stylus Publishing, 2009.

Hanson, Michele J., “Using Assessment Trends in Planning, Decision-Making, 

              and Improvement.” Trends in Assessment:  Ideas, Opportunities, and 

              Issues for Higher Education. Ed. Stephen P. Hundley & Susan Kahn.  

              Sterling:  Stylus, 2019.  175-193. Print.

Suskie, Linda.  Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. 

             San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.