Erick Montenegro and Natasha A. Jankowski advocate for the importance of using various methods to assess students’ knowledge as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach. They write, “There is an assumption at play in the field of assessment that while there are multiple ways for student to learn, students need to demonstrate learning in specific ways for it to count” (Equity & Assessment, page 6). Since the mid-1990s, researchers have argued that most assessment measures are not culturally responsive or designed with respect to nontraditional and underserved populations. We need to change that if we are truly committed to equity in our educational offerings.
So how might we begin?
Give students agency in our assessment processes. Assessment, whether it is course-level or institution-level, should be something we engage in with students, not something we do to students or to judge students. Some faculty have asked students to help them develop the learning objectives for a program or course. This helps students understand better what they are expected to achieve and gives them greater ownership of their learning.
Students might also be invited to develop the rubrics that will be used to measure their performance. By collaborating on rubric criteria, students are asked to think carefully and reflect deeply on what constitutes an exemplary performance as opposed to a mediocre one.
Students definitely have a rightful place at the table when faculty and/or administrators gather to interpret and analyze assessment results. When analyzing survey results, for example, it is helpful to know how students understand the questions or define specific terms.
Dis-aggregate results or data to see if we are achieving equity. When considering student performance in our programs or at the institution, if the N is large enough, it is worth dis-aggregating the findings by demographic groups to see if there are gaps in student performance. If certain groups of students are performing better than others, we are not achieving the goals of equity.
Ask equity-minded questions. At its best, assessment is thoughtful inquiry into student learning. If we explain performance gaps by saying “Some students just aren’t prepared,” we are being deficit-minded, not equity-minded. If we continue to have courses intended to “weed out” students, we are being deficit-minded, not equity-minded. Instead of saying the students are not prepared or can’t make it, ask if we are providing the right kinds of opportunities to prepare them and are we assessing the efficacy of these opportunities.
Conversations about equity and our assessment processes are
starting to take root. These discussions offer us new ways to
think about student learning—how it is achieved and how it is demonstrated. As
Montenegro and Jankowski observe, “If assessment is about demonstrating
learning, then we need to allow students the space to show their knowledge . .
. [H]ow we assess and the process of assessment itself . . . should align with
the students we have, empowering them with narratives to share and document
their learning journey” (Equity &
Assessment, page 15).
References
Finley, Ashley and Tia McNair, Assessing Underserved Students' Engagement in High-Impact Practices. AAC & U: Washington, D.C.. 2013.
Montenergo, Erick and Natasha A. Jankowski. A New Decade for Assessment: Embedding Equity into Assessment Praxis. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, January 2020.
Montenergo, Erick and Natasha A. Jankowsi. Equity and Assessment: Moving Towards Culturally Responsive Assessment. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, 2017
You suggest adding "Agency", how can someone set a goal for a function that they have never experienced, how would know if they achieved the goal? That is the function of the instructor to set the bar because they have been there- done that and achieved the goal.
ReplyDeleteThe function of education is to mold the student to be successful in the "real world". If we change the parameters of learning without changing the "real world" expectations we will have a gap. This separation of preparation and expectation would create a cultural and economic failure in context with the world as it is and not as some academics see it. China is a one culture country and they are forging ahead because they are not dumbing down academics so the under-served can reach parity.
If an initial bar is set as achievable (but it is in fact - too low) then all levels of learning above that class will not be met. American education is losing to the rest of the world because of paralysis by analysis.
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them- Albert Einstein
ReplyDeleteA students’ self-efficacy in the academy is tied to the leadership of the faculty in the classroom. Lowman define intellectual motivation as the degree to which students find their teachers' teaching attractive and clear. Furthermore, he says, students understand teachers who establish a higher level of interpersonal affinity.
I believe that we have responsibility and an opportunity to expect rigor, academic excellence, engagement and ownership of the curriculum from our students, all while caring about who they are as learners, where they come from, and how they learn, consume, and process the content delivered by their faculty.
Also, we have to be careful not to cutoff a student’s chance to add value to the classroom dynamics because they are never given a chance to take ownership of the learning praxis. The student currently in front of us is not always a good indicator of who or what that student will become later on in their development. We need only look at ourselves for this example.