Assessment Update Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Educatic.m Summer 1989 Volume 1, Number2

FIPSE’s Role in Assessment: Past, Present, and Future Constance E. Cook

he assessment movement may well be the 1980s’ most significant innova- tion in postsecondary education. It is appropriate, therefore, that the federal grants competition designed to foster innovative improvement

projects has facilitated and nurtured the development ofassessment. In Fact, the Comprehensive Program of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), which is part of the U.S. Department of Education, has been funding projects on assessment of student learning outcomes since its inception in 1972. Any review of the history of the assessment movement is incomplete without a description of the role that FIPSE has played.

Although FIPSE’s Comprehensive Program sponsors a wide array of postsec- ondary assessment projects, i ts funding has had particular impact on the devel- opment ofthe assessment movement. FIPSE’s influmcecan be attributed in part to the fact that FIPSE has long served as the major national funding source For assessment projects; the amount of support from FIPSE has been exceeded only by recent state appropriations. Timing is the other reason for FIPSE’s impact: F’IPSE started sponsoring assessment projects when they were infrequent in higher education, and so these projects helped focus attention on the fledgling movement. Along the way, state oficials and accrediting agencies joined to give assessment more momentum than FIPSE sponsorship alone could provide.

Examining the varying emphases in FIPSE’s annual Comprehensive Program guidelines is a useful way to trace the development of the assessment movement. In fact, the first regulations specifically mentioned that one of the criteria For evaluating proposals would be the extent to which they “develop[ed] and implement[ed] new kinds of education assessment.” Thus, 15 of the 89 projects funded in 1973 (the Comprehensive Program’s first year) concerned the assess- ment of student learning outcomes.

In the early years, FIPSE assessment projects usually concerned cornpetacy- based learning, the term used to refer to the student’s ability to perform an activity. The special-focus competition on that topic in 1974 said that it involved the following elements: “( 1) the identification and formulation of competency objectives; (2) assessment for mastery of competencies; and (3) the design and implementation of learning processeswhich facilitate the attainment ofspecified competencies.” The grants competition was characteri~ed by the conception of competency as a student’s ability to meet a specific standard, as opposed to the judging of competency only with reference to the pcrformance of a norm group or a test population. Alverno College, a pioneering institution in competency- based learning, was one of the first FIPSE grantees.

ARTICLES

FIPSE‘s Role in Assessment; Past, Present, and Future Constance E. Cook ................,........ I

Editor’s Notes: Weaving Assessment in to the Fabric i of Higher Education Trudy W. Banta ............................ 3

Assessment Activities at Laigc Research Universities .................. .1

Politics and Assessment in the University Jon Wergin .................................... 5

New Jersey Community College Study of the ACT-COMP Exam ......................... 9

Student Potential Assessed at Rhode Island College ............. 10

COLUMNS

Campus Profiles Peter J. Gray .................................. 4

From the States Peter T. EweU ................................ 6

Assessment Measures Garj R Pike .................................. 8

-_ --_ - . - FEATURES

Memos ........................................ 10 Calendar ....................................... I1 Resources ..................................... I 1 Events .......................................... 12

--

Assessment Update Progress, Trends, and Practices

in Higber Education Summer 1989 Volume 1, Number 2

Editor Trudy W. Banta, research professor and director, Assessment Resource Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxwilk

Managing Editor Margery Weber Murphy, research associate, Assessmt Resource Cater, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Consulting Editors Larry A. Braskamp, associute me-chan- cellor for Acndcmic Affairs and dtrector, OJfice oj Instructiaul Management, Uni- versiip o j I lhnm at Urbana-Champaign

Peter T. Ewell, sentor assonate, National Cenk/or Higher Education Management systems

John W. Harris, Ijanu Professor ojChns- tian Educatum, David Lipscomb Univer- stty, Nashville

Pat Hutchings, director, Assessment Forum. Amencan Assoaationfo~ Higher Education

Kay M McClenney, president, RIC’ Edu- cational Cmsultants, Evergreen, CoIorado

Marcia Mentkowski, proJasorand director, OJfice of Research and Evafuation, Alverno College

Designer Kerry L Golemon, Insight Out‘

Assessment Update (ISSN 1041-6099) is published quarterly at the rate of $60 per year by Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. A dis- count of 20% off the regular subscription price is available to individuals and institu- tions ordering and prepaying five o r more subscriptions. Back issues are available in limited supply at $15 per issue. Postmaster: Send address changes to Assessment U p date, Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350 San- some St., San Francisco, CA 94104-1310.

Correspoodence: Address all editorial cor- respondence toTrudy W. Banta, Editor, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2046 Terrace Ave.. Knoxville, TN 379963504. Please send requests for subscriptions to: Jossey-Bass,. 350 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 941041310. Tel.: (415)433-1767.

Copright 0 1989 Jossey-Bas Inc., Publishers.

During the period from 1976 to develop mechanisms for assessing 1979, FIPSE guidelines indicated a program effectiveness. In other words, shift of emphasis in the assessment FIPSE’s emphasis has shifted from the field. Grants were awarded to testing assessment ofindividual students to the companies, for projects to design in- assessment of programs. struments that would go beyond mul- In recent years, FIPSE funding for tiplechoice questions and measure assessment has been generous, as evi- higher-order thinking skills. Projects denced by 25 current Comprehensive were also funded in the mid 1970s that Program assessment projects. Among determined how to go about compe- them are grants that respond to the tency-based testing in such a way that need for general informational serv- academic credit could be awarded for ices, such as the University of Tennes learning on the job, volunteer work, see, Knoxville, project, which has pro-

~~

When assessment has been sufficiently integrated as an improvement mechanism in colleges and universities

nationwide, FIPSE’s role will have been fulfilled.

and even skills acquired by homemak- ers. Assessment thus became a mecha- nism for facilitating access to post sec- ondary education by providing credit to nontraditional students for prior learning.

By theearly 1980sitwasevidentthat some of the programs created to gwe nontraditional learners, such as adults and minority students, access to college were at the periphery of traditional institutionsand needed todemonstrate that their instruction was sufficiently rigorous to merit further support. Con- sequently, the guidelines during this period solicited proposals that could help institutions select and certify the quality of “the best practices which have developed over the past decade.”

The guidelines, rewritten for 1984 and 1985, with the term evaluation replacing ~lssessment, indicated still an- other change in FIPSE’s assessment agenda. This time, the emphasis was on the mechanics of the assessment en- terprise. Questions like the following were posed: Should rewards go to pro- grams that do the most for their stu- dents, programs that have improved the most, or programs that most need to be improved?

Since 1986, the FIPSE guidelines have signaled a renewed emphasis on the assessment of student learning outcomes. In contrast to FIPSE’s early yeai-s, however, when funding was used to assess students’ competency-based learning, current projects usually

vided assessment materials, consulta- tions, and semiannual workshops to over 1,000 institutions. Another recent grant went to the American Association for Higher Education project, which has created an assessment referral serv- ice and sponsored an annual assess- ment conference; this past year, repre- sentatives from public and private col- leges in 48 states and three foreign countries attended.

Other recent FIPSE grants have in- volved the assessment of student learn- ing outcomes in general education cur- ricula, in the majors (often within a consortium of institutions), in medical schools, and in teacher education. FIPSE has funded the development of facultydesigned tests, as well as the creation of test-item banks, innovative instruments combining the best fea- tures of locally designed tests and standardized tests. In addition, FIPSE is funding a portion of some state projects that promise development of models for state policymaking on assessment. This year, there are also new FIPSE projects in which teach- ing effectiveness is to be evaluated, partly on the basis of student learning outcomes.

Because assessment is still a rela- tively new field, there continues to be much to learn about it. Some of the important topics that might be ad- dressed by future FIPSE assessment proposals include the following:

How to hold down the expenses asso-

2

ciated with assessment, so that it will be affordable for all types of institutions

How to use assessment data to help pro- spective students make better-informed enrollment choices and, after they have enrolled, how to provide them with more effective academic progress reports and academic advising

How to use student learning outcomes to improve teaching performance yet avoid forcing faculty to “teach to the test“

How best to make facultydesigned tests both valid and reliable *How best to design assessment instru- ments that have clear links to curricula and yield data that can lead to specific cur- ricular improvements *How to encourage the use of compara- tive assessment data across courses, de- partments, programs, and institutions in such a way that the information does not jeopardize the diversity that characterizes and strengthens higher education in this country.

One caveatwith regard to future fund- ing: FIPSE’s mandate and its trademark has been the funding of innovative im- provement projects. When a new move- ment in higher education gathers enough momentum to take hold at a large num- ber of institutions, FIPSE funding usually begins to decline. When assessment has been sufficiently integrated as an im- provement mechanism in colleges and universities nationwide, FIPSE’s role will have been fulfilled.

However, a number ofconcerns about student learning outcomes remain to be addressed. Thus, demonstration projects that test hypotheses and serve as models for other institutions, aswell as evaluation and dissemination projects related to assessment, are likely to continue to be attractive candidates for FIPSE funding.

The 1989-90 Comprehensive Program guidelineswill be available earlyin the fall. Requests for copies should be sent to FIPSE Comprehensive Program, U.S. Department of Education, 7th and D Streets, SW, Washington, D.C. 20202- 5175 (Tel.: 202-732-5750).

Constance E. Cook is program officer for the Fund fw the Improvement of Post- secondaly Education and coordinates the Comprehensive Program.

(see Stone and Meyer, 1989, in Re- Editor’s Notes sourm). In its second decade ofas-

Weaving Assessment sessment, Northeast used a sophisti- cated knowledge base, derived from assessment. to Dlan its transforma-

‘ 1

into the Fabric tion from one of several regonal - universities into Missouri’s only lib- eral arts institution.

In 1983, on my own campus, as-

of Higher Education Trudy W. Banta

sessment was made a component of a strong nine-year-old program re-

ith most people in higher view process. Recently, one of the education now aware of University of Tennessee, Knoxville, W assessment, the movemen t humanities departments produced

has entered an intensive imple- an exemplary self-study, which made mentation phase. Experimentation good use of data we provide from with a variety of methods is taking surveys of faculty, undergraduates, place. A few institutions have and graduate students, information moved with their assessment efforts that our assessment office provides. into the phase of the change process The self-study process fostered con- known as institutionalization Assess- sensus among the faculty about ment leaders with programs at this program strengths and weaknesses stage of development are arguing and future directionsfor thedepart- strongly that assessment should be incorporated into such established Colleges that engage

in rational planning institutional practices as planning, student development programming, and comorehensive academic ore- . . . can secure the

, gram review.

Critics have expressed the hope thatassessmentwill notcommandas much attentionin the futureasithas in the past four years, because it has “overshadowed many of the other critical issues facing higher educa- tion.” I believe this view implies the failure to recognize the positive role that assessment can play in helping to achieve these and other impor- tant goals, if it is firmly woven into the institutional tapestry.

At pioneering institutions like Alverno College and Northeast Mis- souri University, early assessment initiatives created unique campus identities that began to attract out- standing students and faculty. Since then, Alverno has based an entire undergraduate curriculum on close- ly monitored development of indi- vidual students, an approach that has brought opportunities for ex- ternal funding and for sharing meth- odswith other institutions that hope to duplicate Alverno’s successes

future of assessment. ~

ment. External reviewers were able to reach conclusions early in their campus visit and then to concen- trate on the details of making rec- ommendations for departmental improvements that will be consid- ered and acted on by the faculty and by the departmental, college, and university administrators.

Colleges that engage in rational planning-specifying objectives for student development; implement- ing curricula, methods of instruc- tion, and campus services to ac- complish these ends with students; and using assessment results to chart progress and make warranted improvements-can secure the fu- ture of assessment, because it will be such an integral part of our day-to- day activities. Moreover, assessment will not be viewed as a competing demand for attention if it is con- sidered a means to e&t improvement in every institutional process. W

3