Assessment Loop Form

1. Assessment Loop Form Assessment Loop Forms: What Did We Learn? Where Do We Go?

2. Assessment Loop Form (ALF) Background • Accreditation recommendation • Institution-program-classroom assessment • ALF = classroom component • ALF documents what faculty are already doing

3. ALF Purposes • Help faculty track student learning • Help faculty see what others are doing • Data archived for accreditation • Data archived for program review • Other?

4. ALF: What Did We Learn? • Faculty are assessing all the time • Faculty care about learners and want to help them • Assessment can be messy

5. ALF Components • Outcome • Assessment • Change/Intervention • Impact of Change/Intervention • Reflections • New Questions

6. ALF: Outcome • What is a learning outcome?

7. ALF: Outcome Analysis • ~35% of ALFs included one learner-centered outcome • ~15% of ALFs included more than one outcome • Are we overachievers? Multi-taskers? Do we lack assessment experience? Is the ALF difficult to understand? • ~20% of ALFs were written with teacher-centered rather than learner-centered language

8. ALF: Assessment • What are we measuring?

9. ALF: Assessment Analysis • Over 90% of ALF assessments related to: • Student performance (exams, quizzes, class projects, etc.) • Student feedback (questions, comments, student evaluations, blank stares, etc.) • Student behavior (engagement/participation, work completion, etc.)

10. ALF: Change • Based on assessment of learning, faculty introduce a change/intervention to improve student learning

11. ALF: Change Analysis • Predictably, changes are specific to classes • Common themes, however, exist

12. ALF: Change Analysis

13. ALF: Impact • Faculty were to reassess students to determine impact of change on learning • Like initial assessment, majority of ALFs included language relating to student performance, feedback, and behavior

14. ALF: Impact Analysis

15. ALF: Unexpected Impact Findings • ~15% of ALFs included word “might” to reference student behavior, performance, feedback • ~15% of ALFs included language like “seemed” and “understood” without evidence to back up findings

16. Assessment, Evidence, Impact Connections

17. ALF: Reflections • Because of private nature of ALF component, comments were more diverse • ~28% indicated contentment with results/student success • ~11% mentioned an unexpected occurrence • ~8% iterated the need to help students succeed • ~8% reported assessment being worth the effort

18. ALF: Common Themes Among Reflections • Students actively participating in the classroom learning experience is important • Making connections between classroom and “real life” experiences is important

19. ALF: New Questions • Faculty interested in pursuing assessment in their classrooms • ~34% want to continue to re-develop, re-time, and/or expand ALF activity • ~20% intend to repeat, or will consider repeating, ALF activities in future classes • ~11% intend to repeat, or will consider repeating, ALF activity in other parts of class • ~7.5% will continue to help improve student success

20. ALF: What the Fig? • ALF = opportunity for individual to pursue answers to learning questions • Faculty Inquiry Groups (FIGs) = opportunity for groups to pursue answers to learning questions

21. Five-Minute Water Cooler Activity • Small group • Create one learner-centered outcome for chosen discipline • Identify evidence needed to assess outcome

22. ALF: Where Do We Go? • New Form • Online • Instructions shortened • Drop-down menus, checkboxes • Text boxes • ELOs added • Samples can be attached • ALF can be saved!

23. ALF: Where Do We Go? • There will be ALF training in the TLC • Contact Trish Root for individualized help • X4593 • troot@sccd.ctc.edu

24. ALF: What Can We Do Better?

25. Thank You… • Assessment Committee • Jack Bautsch • Sam Bayne • Betsy Campbell • Lori Casile • Noris Daniel • Davene Eyres • Faculty Leadership Community • Boyd Gittins • Jane Lister-Reis • Mary Ellen O’Keeffe • Brian Palmer