Organizer of Workshop:
Professor Charles F. Hohm of the Sociology Department at San Diego State University responded to the RFP regarding discipline specific assessment workshops. He proposed a day and a half workshop at SDSU with Dr. William Johnson from Arizona State, being the workshop leader. It was proposed that at least one person from each Sociology Department in the CSU be invited to the workshop.
Professor Hohm’s proposal was funded.
Workshop Leader:
Dr. William S. Johnson, Director of the Office of University Evaluation at Arizona State University, was selected to serve as the workshop leader. Dr. Johnson has his Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Southern California, chaired the Department of Sociology at Ball State University, and instituted the Office of Assessment at Ball State before being asked to go to Arizona State to set up a similar assessment office. Dr. Johnson is a national leader in the field of assessment of student learning outcomes and is the co-author of the American Sociological Association publication, Assessing Undergraduate Learning in Sociology (ASA, 1992).
Summary of Workshop:
Some concerns about assessment:
After everyone introduced themselves, there was a fairly long general discussion on assessment. Numerous participants expressed concern with how assessment data could be used by system or campus administrators, in punitive ways. In fact, a couple of participants shared horror stories from their campuses, telling us how administrators would either tell departments exactly what data they had to gather, in exactly what format, and also, how departmental data was taken from the departments during the summer when faculty were not around. These accounts sent chills down our spines and are no doubt responsible for many of the fears that CSU faculty have about assessment. One possible way to deal with this problem is to make it CSU policy (if it isn’t already) that departmental assessment data is the property of the department and must remain such. Under no conditions should administrators ask for the raw assessment data. We would also encourage the senates of all CSU campuses to insert such language about assessment data in their policy files.
Concern was also expressed about the language concerning assessment that can be found in various versions of Cornerstones and the Cornerstone Implementation Plan. When CSU administrators talk of assessment being used to identify departments and programs for elimination, the probability of faculty embracing assessment dwindles.
Concern was also expressed about "cookie-cutter," standardized versions of assessment being pushed by the CSU. Though most of the documents about assessment coming out of the CSU call for individualized and customized assessment for departments, the "cookie-cutter" version surfaces from time to time (eg. general education assessment of math and writing). The workshop participants were emphatically against standardized types of assessment, as they fail to take into account the great heterogeneity among our programs and campuses.
Finally, concern was expressed about the lack of sufficient resources (time and money) to do assessment correctly. Some of the participants indicated that assessment is being "dumped" on the backs of over-worked faculty and that teaching and research efforts suffer as a result. There seemed to be quite a bit of variation on how various campuses throughout the CSU are funding and supporting assessment, with some campuses providing generous support while others offer only meager support.
Overview of Assessment by Dr. Johnson:
As an introduction to the workshop, Dr. Johnson spent considerable time discussing the national context for assessment, what assessment of student learning outcomes really means, and the need and purpose of assessment. Dr. Johnson pointed out that assessment is often tied to program review and that, as a result, assessment is viewed as a hurdle that needs to be cleared. It is better if assessment is an on-going activity and integrated into the curriculum. If assessment is viewed in this light, it often results in a conversation among faculty about teaching. Most of the conversations that occur among faculty are about students rather than student learning. It’s the latter that we need to be concerned with.
Dr. Johnson also talked about the places that assessment should take place. Assessment should occur at all levels but the alumni data are probably the most important. Our graduates can tell us a lot about what is working well and what is not working well in our programs.
Dr. Johnson offered the following definition of assessment: "Assessment is the direct or indirect information about student performance and development to produce evidence that would be useful in understanding how well students are meeting goals and objectives set by departments in which they are enrolled." Assessment is a process that should result in better teaching and learning and the best assessment is embedded in the curriculum. Also, assessment is characterized by the following: It is an on going activity; it serves to enhance the units mission; it is dynamic (it is circular with a feedback loop); it is long term; it is dynamic in that it is changing (goals and objectives; indicators; etc.); and it is cognitive and affective.
Goals and Objectives and Indicators:
Dr. Johnson involved the workshop participants in a number of interesting small group activities aimed at the generation of learning goals/objectives and indicators. The small groups then reported their ideas to the large group. The workshop participants were pleasantly surprised at how similar goals and objectives emerged from the various small groups. The goals/objectives and indicators generated by the workshop participants, together with goals/objectives and indicators from various departmental assessment plans, were used to generate the list that follows.
A number of Sociology Departments in the CSU have made impressive strides in the identification of learning objectives and indicators. The handouts from these departments are included in the Appendix to this report. The Sociology Department at CSU Sacramento has an impressive assessment plan. The department opted for an assessment plan that was manageable and doable. Much of their data is gathered from questionnaires and is put into SPSS format for analysis. The characteristic that distinguishes the Sociology Department at CSU Chico with regard to assessment is how they integrate departmental learning goals and objectives in the department’s entry in the CSU Chico general catalog. The Sociology Department at CSU Northridge has developed an assessment plan that is currently undergoing change. CSUN’s assessment plan is tied to the internship which is required of all sociology graduates. Given the huge number of sociology majors (1000), the department is attempting to find indicators that are more "doable" than portfolios, the assessment technique originally selected by the department. The Sociology Department at SJSU shared their university’s "FlashBase Forms" computerized assessment system, with us. This system is interactive and allows students and alumni to provide information via the internet. The Sociology Departments at Humbolt State University and SFSU are starting their assessment plans and shared them with the group. Humbolt’s plan includes a Senior Student Exit Interview, which was adapted from Alverno College.
Distribution of Materials/Information and Future Meetings:
A listserve/chatgroup will be put together by Professor Bob Christie of CSU Dominguez Hills and a website for the CSU Sociology Assessment Group will also be produced. The listserve/chatgroup will allow participants of the workshop (and other interested sociologists) to communicate with each other about assessment. The website will allow us to share the work we did at the workshop with others interested in assessment in sociology.
Our group plans on getting together at annual meetings of the California Sociological Association and the Pacific Sociological Association.
CSU ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP
At SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY (Faculty Staff Centre)
April 22-23, 1999
Workshop Agenda
|
April 22, 1999 | |
| 7:45 | Continental Breakfast |
| 8:00-9:30 | Orientation and Introduction
Welcome and Introductions
Staff (Bill Johnson and Chuck Hohm) and Participants
Overview of workshop goals
National context for assessment
Defining assessment
Need and purpose of assessment |
| 9:30-9:45 | Break
|
| 9:45-12:00 | Learning Outcomes Assessment: What do we want our major to know and what should they be able to do?
Relationship between goals and performance objectives
Characteristics of good learning outcomes statements (The
Sociological Imagination: Small group discussion and
large group discussion) |
| 12:00-1:15 | Lunch |
| 1:15-5:30 | Designing an Assessment Plan (break from 2:30-2:45)
Characteristics of an effective assessment plan
Steps in designing and implementing assessment plans
Common assessment plans and tools
Developing a campus/department assessment plan
(small group exercise) |
| 5:30-6:30 | Reception
|
|
April 23, 1999 | |
| 7:45 | Continental Breakfast
|
| 8:00-12:00 | Using Assessment Findings (break 9:45-10:00)
Evaluating the fit between findings and goals
Incorporating findings into departmental improvement
initiatives
Using data to drive curricular reform (small group exercise)
Making assessment happen on your home campus (group and individual work)
Involving faculty in assessment
Assessment as a component of academic program review
|
| 12:00-1:00 | Lunch/wrap-up
|
