ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR ASSESSMENT IN THE MAJOR

     At Albany each department constructs an appropriate means for assessing student attainment in the majority using a broad range of possible assessment designs.  In some departments where the numbers of majors are small, the faculty might focus on the achievement of all students.  Other departments, perhaps with large numbers of majors, may decide to study representative groups of students.  The aim of the assessment is not to magnify any particular student's success or failure, but rather to judge in whatever ways we can the work as faculty in nurturing, enhancing, and enabling those abilities.  Departments might combine some of the elements discussed below, or might design a unique approach, not considered here.  Our objectives are to examine what it is students are acquiring when they major in a particular discipline, and to use that information to enhance the learning experience for future students.

ALTERNATIVES:

     When such exams are designed locally by the faculty they have the advantage of being shaped to fit the department's curriculum.  Departmental exams have the disadvantages of needing labor-intensive annual revision and local scoring by the faculty, and of lacking a comparison group.  Standardized instruments provide scoring services and more reliable and valid comparison groups: but they may or may not fit the department's curriculum and are not useful in disciplines wishing to go beyond a multiple choice format.

      Such a requirement encourages students to use the tools of the discipline on a focused task as the culmination of their undergraduate academic experience.  Under ideal conditions, each department or program uses the student's work to reflect on what students are achieving with the aim of evaluating, and if necessary strengthening, the curriculum and experiences of students within that major.

      Asking students to demonstrate in some practical, or even public way, the knowledge and skills they have learned and acquired, this emphasizes the integration and application of the separate facets of the academic major.  Such a requirement may be especially fitting in professional and performing arts fields.  Examples include student recitals, art exhibitions, practice teaching, and supervised field experiences.

     This is usually a required senior course designed to integrate the study of the discipline.  It often has a heavy research and writing component.  Such courses offer ideal opportunities, both to assess student learning and to strengthen the curriculum of that major.  Often the course can contain some other form of assessment, such as a local or national exam , embedded within it.

      In this mode of assessment, students collect systematically the work that they have undertaken in their study of a discipline.  They undertake and write a self-examination of the material, demonstrating how the have constructed the discipline through their writing and thinking over two years of study.  Afterwards, faculty meet with the students to go over this portfolio.  The faculty then could use their own and the students’ analyses of the portfolios coupled with their perceptions of the student conferences as a basis for conversation among faculty about the curriculum and practices within a discipline.  In departments selecting this option all faculty responsible for undergraduate education should be a part of this process, but the plan becomes difficult to implement if each faculty member has to assess overly large numbers of students.

      The faculty constructs a series of questions that ask students to demonstrate their conceptual understanding of the discipline, and to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their programs.  The students respond in writing and then meet to discuss with faculty to their written statements.  The faculty then meet to discuss the results of their conferences with students for the purpose of strengthening the major.  Large departments may sample a cross section of seniors rather than the entire population.

Other Suggestions:

• Course embedded assessment (e.g., standardized examination; classroom research project; beginning vs. ending in written assignment)
• Student Self-Assessment (e.g., video of oral presentations)
• Student Peer assessment (builds a learning culture in the department)
• Secondary reading of the student's regular course work by faculty colleagues (requires an atmosphere of department collegiality)
• External examiners/readers (puts student and faculty member on the same learning team - they both want to look good.)
• Using historical department data on student performance and placement
• Faculty Focus Group discussions with students
• Surveys of students and alumni using self-reported measures