Reporting and Analyzing Assessment Findings

 It’s not unusual to see assessment reports where the findings are summarized as such: “23% met expectations, 52% exceeded expectations, and 25% did not meet expectations.” That’s a standard approach used at many institutions to satisfy assessment requirements and meet accreditors’ demands.

What do they really mean, though? What do they really tell you, other than the majority of your students are exceptional? How do these results inform continuous improvement?

The less specific the results are, the less useful or meaningful they are.

For assessment findings to have any value, they should be precise and aligned with the goal being measured. Imagine you were assessing students’ information literacy. Rather than report “23% met expectations, 52% exceeded expectations, and 25% did not meet expectations,” the results might be presented as “23% of students were able to access information using simple search strategies, 52% were able to access information using a variety of search strategies, and 25% accessed information randomly, unable to distinguish relevance and quality.” That level of detail informs how you might plan instruction.

 In addition to reporting specific findings, analyzing assessment results is critical. What does it even mean to report “19 students participated in research opportunities” or “669 students were members of a club or organization”?  Are those numbers good? Bad? Having clear targets may help one understand the results, though targets are often arbitrary. Comparing these findings over time might produce meaningful information, indicating whether more students participated in research or student organizations this year compared to previous years. Or the data might be disaggregated by race/ethnicity to show if inequities exist in the opportunities we are giving to students.

 Assessment has been part of the landscape in higher education since the last century. We have to do it, and we need to do it. And since it must be done, it might as well be meaningful to our work and not something we do to check the compliance box. Given the pressure on accrediting bodies to show the value of higher education, one can be sure that just checking the compliance box will no longer pass the muster for accreditation.