Executive Summary – Lessons
Learned & Next Steps
Building Learner-Centered
Institutions: Developing Institutional Strategies for Assessing and Improving
Student Learning
This workshop, sponsored by
WASC and AAHE, brought together some 150 learning communities and assessment
leaders from the western region in order to help campus teams draft plans to
develop campus-wide collaboration focused on student learning and development,
to build a sustainable commitment to student-centeredness both inside and
outside of the classroom, and to seek and rely on evidence to guide
institutional decision making.[1]
Pepperdine University sent a
team of twelve faculty members[2]
to this event, led by Don Thompson. Team members represented all five schools
and focused on four constituent subgroups:
the University Faculty Assessment Council, and three academic divisions
from Seaver College – Communication, Humanities, and Religion.
The best evidence of return
on investment for the university is mirrored in the feedback from event
participants, responding to two questions:
What was the most
valuable aspect of going on this trip?
Ø
Having the opportunity
to collaborate and build community with colleagues on program planning, review,
and capstone projects.
Ø
Receiving valuable
materials for our division program review timeline and process.
Ø
Attending presentations
made by Dr. Mary Allen that provided structure and focus for our own
upcoming program review assessment activities, especially her presentations on
rubrics, learning objectives, and program objectives alignment matrices, and
how to sequence the process of turning learning goals into measurable
objectives.
Ø
Obtaining Dr. Allen’s
ideas on rubrics for my own courses as well as applying them to the RTP
process.
Ø
Realizing that the
most valuable resources at our disposal are our own, that is, the outstanding
colleagues that we have within Pepperdine. However, we would not have drawn on
those resources nearly as well without the kinds of context and stimuli provided
by the conference
Ø
Understanding that
outcomes assessment is only part of a bigger goal of shifting faculty to a
learner-centered teaching approach.
Ø
Seeing anew that the
shift from teacher to learner centeredness derives from a postmodern view of
higher education. (Don Thompson)
Ø
Focusing on learner
goals and learning outcomes happens best in an educational environment where
there is acceptance of learner-centered approaches and where there is a culture
of assessment.
Ø
Thinking on a much
deeper level about the relationship between teaching and learning.
Ø
Understanding how our
process of program review might result in "embedded" processes that
are not seen as intrusive (that may be difficult) or rushed.
Ø
Confirming the notion of
simplicity/focus, that is, not trying to say everything about everything but
picking out some particular areas for both evaluation and recommendation.
Aspiring to smaller, rather than more comprehensive, steps may do more
good.
Ø
Understanding the
fundamental explanations of the ways assessment can work, be measured, and
especially be structured and maintained.
I saw some powerful ways to make tables to summarize assessment data.
Ø
Discovering as many
ideas for teaching as for assessment, especially about the management of
groups.
Ø
Envisioning the idea of
planning our next university faculty retreat around the theme of assessment,
and inviting one or more of our speakers from the Hawaii panel to speak with
us.
Ø
Developing an
assessment vocabulary was also helpful. The concept of breaking the
program review process into steps (rather than trying to do it all in one step)
resonated with me.
Ø
Commit university
resources (time and people) to the task - and not overwhelm faculty by simply
pushing more of this type of work downward (as we have done with the
prioritization) on top of their already full workload.
Ø
Empower faculty to
achieve embedded assessment tools in already existing workload allocations
should be a priority.
Ø
Devote the Seaver (August) or Pepperdine (October) faculty
retreat to a broader workshop on both the Student Learning Objectives and
assessment coordination should be high on the University agenda. Hold mini-versions of the same on our campus
or in retreat settings. Have Mary Allen
provide some structure and ideas, and then have various break-out groups
charged with the specific task of designing assessment procedures geared to
their own programs (or some other "capstone project" if they are at a
different phase of their respective assessment cycles). In other words,
hold an assessment summit that brings together assessment activities that are
currently at work in the 5 schools. Use the philosophy of "starting small" philosophy that
we heard so much about is obviously crucial, but it seems to me that
small but significant strides forward are realistic in a series of
mini-retreats.
Ø
Document what we already
have in place that meets the WASC criteria. Have each school document
assessment procedures are already in place.
Time should then be allotted at faculty meetings at each school, to
allow faculty to reach some consensus of what outcomes they deem most important
for students in our programs. We should
then discuss how well our existing assessment procedures tap these desired
outcomes. Where gaps are identified, we
(and where necessary we can draw in outside help) can discuss ways of adjusting
our assessment procedures. For certain
schools (mine being a good example) if we want faculty to be involved and
enthusiastic about assessment, it is VERY important that the design of the
assessment process be faculty driven rather than a general assessment scheme
imposed from the outside.
Ø
There is a rumor that
what is needed from a program review is a no-more-than 20
page document (including executive summary) with appendices. If
that is true, I would hope that not even appendices would greatly expand the
volume. That's not merely a comment about workload; if these are to be
useful documents, I don't think they can be lengthy ones based on what I've
seen in past assessment/accreditation/strategic planning efforts.
Ø
Get faculty to buy into
the process. Using embedded approaches
will be helpful in this regard. I also
like the idea of inviting Mary Allen to campus. She could provide some good information regarding general
principles of assessment. I would also
suggest, however, identifying a few "green light people" in different
programs to share with other faculty specific examples of how they
"do" assessment. I think that
providing specific examples of faculty work will be more effective than
providing them only with general principles of assessment. The ideal then would be to have Mary come
for a faculty conference to provide information on general assessment issues
via plenary sessions coupled with break-out sessions that include faculty work
in assessment.
Ø
Keep the assessment process
faculty driven. Faculty members should
identify their assessment goals/objectives/plans and present them to the
administration/UFAC rather than the other way around. I think the assessment process will be more valuable to faculty
(and more acceptable) the less the process is viewed as a mandate "from
above."
Ø
Establish the assessment
process as an activity that is ongoing and that will provide tangible benefits
for faculty. If faculty perceive the
process as merely an exercise to satisfy WASC then they will not become
invested in the process. I hope the
UFAC can be a committee that evaluates and re-evaluates program assessment on
an ongoing basis.
Ø
Discuss (at UPC?) the
role of assessment in the broader context of university strategic planning and
budgeting.
Ø
Require each division to
have an ongoing, coherent program assessment procedure/plan with a schedule for
implementation and regular reporting.
The plan needs to be linked to the review and accreditation processes and
linked to future prioritization. To
assess a program, it seems that required or at least core courses must have
assessment plans. The existence and
maintenance of assessment of courses should also be linked to RTP teaching
evaluations. To facilitate, try some of
the following: Identify existing model
assessment activities on campus and online, especially those with embedded
methods; identify campus assessment mentors; provide release time ; provide
summer workshops and/or stipends.
Ø
Start building an
assessment program at each school of the university. We need to start small. I
was going to suggest that we pick a specific area of our existing programs (for
the professional schools), and set up an assessment pilot project. I was going to
recommend the first year legal writing course at the law school, but I have to
speak with my colleagues who teach in that program first. Also, having a
quarterly committee meeting o talk through issues do debriefing, and discussing
challenges might be a good thing as well.
Ø
From here we need to
enlist/excite more of our colleagues to become part of the assessment
process. I like the suggestion of working in small groups in
mini-workshops over a period of time. A similar model might be the Sears
Asian Studies program from several years ago (done more inexpensively).
We as faculty have grown farther apart. We need to get to know one
another better to establish the trust necessary for a valid assessment
program.
Future Directions: Don Thompson is meeting with all of the workshop participants over the next month to determine how best to proceed to capture the significant momentum gained from this assessment activity and make connections with the larger university community. The group unanimously desires to bring Dr. Mary Allen to our campus for assessment workshops in the near future.
[1] The workshop’s stated objectives were to: 1) Understand, explore, and deepen institutional commitment to being a learner-centered institution, 2) Develop increased awareness of strategies that build institutional capacity to foster student learning and development, 3) Develop increased understanding of a broad array of direct and indirect strategies to assess student learning and development, 4) Explore programmatic and institutional concerns for assessing student outcomes, 5) Understand the importance of campus-wide collaboration to base decisions about curriculum, pedagogy, student support services, and other institutional practices on evidence concerning student learning and development, 6) Understand the importance of embedding a focus on student learning in existing institutional and programmatic practices, processes, or structures, 7) Draft a campus plan to advance the institution’s focus on student learning.
[2] Bob Chandler, Randy Chesnutt, Cara Garcia, Michael Hamlin, Angela Hawken, Steve Lemley, Cindy Miller-Perrin, Mike Murrie, Gregory Ogden, Darlene Rivas, Don Shores, Don Thompson