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
Suskie, Linda. (2009). Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. 2nd ed. San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
