Using Multiple Assessment Methods to Measure Student Performance: An Equitable Practice

 When reviewing annual assessment reports from academic departments, members of the Academic Assessment Committee look to see if a department uses multiple methods to assess its learning goals. To do so constitutes an exemplary practice. The reason for this is simple: every assessment method has its limitations, and it can be misleading to make judgments or develop plans based on data gathered from one instrument. If we want reliable results that can be used to shape a compelling narrative and assist our planning efforts, we need more than one approach to tell us about students’ successes and failures.  

This holds true for course-level assessment as well. Linda Suskie asserts, “The greater the variety of evidence, the more confidently you can infer that students [in your classes] have indeed learned what you want them to.”

It’s also a matter of equity. Different learners demonstrate their learning in different ways. To voice a commitment to the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion but measure student learning using a single instrument that favors some learners over others is a contradictory practice. 

Using multiple assessment methods in the classroom aligns with the guidelines for Universal Design for Learning, which consider the diverse needs and abilities of all students enrolled in a classroom. These guidelines emphasize multiple means of having students engage with learning, recognize the what of learning, and demonstrate the how of learning.

Some educators advance the idea of giving students choice when it comes to how their learning will be measured. Examples include having students complete fill-in-the-blank type questions or completing multiple choice questions, writing a long essay or composing three short answers.

I have no experience with this particular approach, so I cannot testify to its merits (and quite frankly, I see it as potentially problematic). A more plausible strategy would simply be to use a variety of assignments—papers, presentations, objective tests, surveys—to assess performance.  That is, do not rely solely on one method, such as the mid-term and final exam. 

Understandably, some programs need to prepare students to be successful on a single summative assessment: a certification or licensing examination, a standardized admissions test to graduate or professional school. It is unlikely we will see professional boards or state agencies change how they measure knowledge and skills. Developing students’ ability to be successful on a single test makes sense.

But more often than not, we have the opportunity to use multiple assessment methods, both summative and formative. Doing so is not only a better way to measure actual learning, it is also a more equitable practice, one that recognizes diversity as the norm in our classes.

 

 

Works Cited

CAST (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from

  http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Suskie, Linda. (2009). Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. 2^nd ed. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.