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.
