Grading and assessment presentation
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•378 views
This document discusses the differences between course evaluation/grading and program assessment. Course evaluation focuses on measuring course learning outcomes through various assignments, while program assessment measures program learning outcomes through signature assignments across multiple courses. Signature assignments must be consistent and use standardized rubrics to allow aggregation of data to assess program-level outcomes. Program assessment is conducted annually through a Program Annual Report and every five years through a comprehensive program review to evaluate student learning and identify areas for improvement.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Grading and assessment presentation
Similar to Grading and assessment presentation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Grading and assessment presentation
- 1. Mary Hazzard, Ph. D. Assessment Fellow Grading and Assessment: Overview
- 2. Learning Outcomes The learner will be able to: Identify if a PLO is to be introduced, developed, or mastered in a course. Differentiate between course evaluation/grading and program assessment.
- 3. Program Learning Outcomes Identify the knowledge, skills, and dispositions (values) expected of all graduates of a program Stated in behavioral, measurable terms Describe general expectations for graduates Consistent with the University Mission and Institutional Learning Outcomes Consistent with state/national standards for discipline, if appropriate Revised or developed in curricUNET Appear in the course syllabus
- 4. Institutional learning Outcomes (ILO) Catalog 2011 page 20 1. Apply information literacy skills necessary to support continuous, lifelong learning. 2. Communicate effectively orally and in writing, and through other appropriate modes of expression. 3. Display mastery of knowledge and skills in a discipline. 4. Demonstrate cultural and global awareness to be responsible citizens in a diverse society. 5. Demonstrate professional ethics and practice academic integrity. 6. Utilize research and critical thinking to solve problems. 7. Use collaboration and group processes to achieve a common goal.
- 5. Writing Learning Outcomes Focus on the learner – on what the graduates will do Use active verbs that clearly communicate the depth of processing and specify definite, observable behaviors. Program Learning Outcomes should be able to be developed over several courses. Clarify if expectations are for absolute or value-added attainment. Most use absolute.
- 7. Evaluation/Grading Assessment Assignments designed to measure course learning outcomes and/or unit learning outcomes. Data from evaluation is generally not aggregated across classes. Assignments may vary from one class to another. Grading rubrics may vary. Signature assignments designed to measure program learning outcomes. Data aggregated across classes and used for assessment of PLO’s. Assignment MUST be same across classes and the same rubric used by all instructors. Inter-rater reliability needs to be established for grading using rubric. Grading or Assessment
- 8. Signature Assignment Check with the program lead faculty to determine if a signature assignment is included in the course. Check to see if the assignment is to be used for BOTH grading and assessment. Check to be sure if the rubric is to be used for BOTH grading and assessment.
- 9. Grading and Assessment Develop common scheme for assessing the elements of signature assignments Conduct assessment as assignment graded. Pool assessment data across classes.
- 10. Assessment Assessment of PLO’s is conducted annually in a Program Annual Report (PAR) PAR generally assesses 20% of the PLO’s each year. In the sixth year a self study is conducted.
- 11. Assessment at NU Program Annual Report (PAR) Annual Assessment of student learning 20% or more of the PLO’s assessed each year Five Year Review Overview of the program Conducted in sixth year
- 12. Program Annual Report (PAR) What do we want students to learn? (PLO’S) What evidence do we use to assess their learning? (Plan) How well are they learning? (Findings) So what? (Reflection and recommendations) Now what? (Plan for Improvement) Reflection on Assessment Process Closing the Loop (Status of proposed recommendations)
- 13. Assessment at NU Five Year Review Based in Inquiry – what does the faculty need to know to improve the program Evidence-based (relevant qualitative and quantitative evidence) decisions making Evidence of program quality Curriculum and Learning Environment Faculty Evidence of program viability and sustainability Information and technology resources Facilities Staff
- 14. Summary Evaluation/ grading is aligned with CLO. Signature assignments may be included in a course for assessment of PLO’s. Check with program lead to determine if course includes signature assignment(s).
- 15. Resource Contact Mary Hazzard, Assessment Fellow mhazzard@nu.edu 858-642-8361
Editor's Notes
- This will be an overview for grading and assessment. Additional sessions will include Course evaluation, Assessment, and creation of rubrics. This will allow content to be presented in smaller chunks for easier review.
- Learning outcomes have been established for each module and for this offering the learning outcomes are to be able to:Identify if a PLO is to be introduced, developed, or mastered in a course.Differentiate between course evaluation/grading and program assessment.
- Program learning outcomes (PLO) identify the knowledge, skills, and dispositions (values) expected of all graduates of a program and are stated in behavioral and measurable terms. The PLO describe the general expectations for graduates and are consistent with the University Mission and Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILO). The PLO should also be consistent with state/national standards for the discipline, if appropriate. The PLO must be revised or developed in curricUNET, be approved by all appropriate parties and then are included in course syllabi.
- The institutional Learning Outcomes IILO) were developed to define outcomes expected of graduates from National University. The ILO were developed from the Mission statement as well as from items found in many programs. The University has had ILO’s since 2008. There are 7 ILO’s and they are:1. Apply information literacy skills necessary to support continuous, lifelong learning. 2. Communicate effectively orally and in writing, and through other appropriate modes of expression.3. Display mastery of knowledge and skills in a discipline.4. Demonstrate cultural and global awareness to be responsible citizens in a diverse society.5. Demonstrate professional ethics and practice academic integrity.6. Utilize research and critical thinking to solve problems. 7. Use collaboration and group processes to achieve a common goal.The key concepts have been highlighted in red and include: information literacy; orally, writing, appropriate modes of expression; knowledge and skills; cultural and global awareness; professional ethics and academic integrity; research and critical thinking; and collaboration and group processes. Program leads have mapped the PLO’s to the ILO’s.
- PLO should focus on the learner or on what the graduate will do on graduation. Active verbs are used that clearly communicate the depth of processing and specify definite observable behaviors. PLO should be introduced on one course and then developed over several courses and mastery should be expected prior to graduation. There should be clarification if the outcomes is absolute or value-added. Most PLO use absolute expectations.
- The pyramid indicates the revised Bloom’s taxonomy where the highest level is now creating. Generally speaking, for an associate degree program understanding and remembering are the levels expected. For a baccalaureate, remembering, understanding, applying, and in some fields evaluating are expectations. For a graduate student the expectation is for analyzing, evaluating, creating, and then applying.
- Thee are some differences between grading and assessment. Evaluation or grading assignments are designed to measure course and/or unit learning outcomes and the data from evaluation is generally not aggregated across courses. Assignments and grading rubrics may vary from one course to another. For assessment, the signature assignment is designed to measure program learning outcomes and the data is aggregated across courses and used for assessment of the PLO’s. A signature assignment MUST be the same across courses and the same rubric MUST be used by all instructors. Inter-rater reliability needs to be established for grading using the rubric so that comparable data is derived from all courses. More details about evaluation/grading will be provided in the module on Evaluation/grading. More information on Assessment will be provided in the Assessment module. A module will also provide more information in creating rubrics and obtaining inter-rater reliability.
- A course developer MUST check with the lead faculty for the program to determine if a signature assignment is scheduled for the class, the nature of the assignment, as well as the rubric to be used for assessment. Also check to see if the assignment and rubric are to be used for both grading and assessment.
- A specific assignment in a course may be used for both grading as well as for assessment purposes. If this is desired then a common scheme for assessing the elements of the signature assignment must be developed and then the assessment can be done at the same time as the assignment is graded. If an assignment is used for both grading and assessment then the data is pooled across courses using data from the online or eCompaniongradebook and analyzed for purposes of assessment and determining if students are able to achieve the program learning outcome.
- Assessment of PLO’s is conducted annually in a Program Annual Report (PAR). In general, the PAR assesses 20% of the PLO’s each year but some programs and/or schools require more frequent review. In the sixth year a self study is conducted that looks at the entire program.
- Assessment at National is a two part process. The program annual report is the assessment of student learning and the minimum is 20% of the PLO’s assessed each year. The PAR is reviewed by the Department Chair, Dean, and the Graduate or Undergraduate Council. Recommendations with financial impact are reviewed for inclusion in the budget. A five year review is conducted in the sixth year.
- Questions that guide the PAR review include:What do we want students to learn? (PLO’S)What evidence do we use to assess their learning? (Plan for assessment)How well are they learning? (Findings)So what? (Reflection and recommendations)Now what? (Plan for Improvement)Reflection on Assessment ProcessClosing the Loop (Status of proposed recommendations). Each year the PAR includes what has been done about recommendations from the prior year as well as progress on the MOA.
- Assessment at National is a two part process. The program annual report is the assessment of student learning and the minimum is 20% of the PLO’s assessed each year. The PAR is reviewed by the Department Chair, Dean, and the Graduate or Undergraduate Council. Recommendations with financial impact are reviewed for inclusion in the budget. A five year review is conducted in the sixth year and includes evidence-based decision making,evidence of program quality, curriculum and learning, faculty, evidence of program vitality and sustainability, information and technology resources, facilities, and staff. An external evaluator reviews the self study and makes recommendations for improvement and the self study and external reviewers report is then reviewed by the Graduate or Undergraduate Council and the process culminates in a Memorandum of Agreement.
- In summary evaluation/ grading is aligned with the CLO. Signature assignments may be included in a course for assessment of PLO’s. Check with program lead to determine if course includes signature assignment(s).
- The assessment fellows are good resources if there are questions or assistance is needed in developing a course that includes a signature assignment. Mary Hazzard is an assessment fellow and can be contacted via email at mhazzard@nu.eduOr by phone at 858-642-8361.