Following are some of the commonly raised concerns about the push for assessment on college campuses. After each concern that has been raised, the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (ASLO) Committee has provided a response that we hope will address some of these legitimate concerns.

Q. Why do you want to know what I'm doing and how I'm doing it; is there a problem with how I'm doing my job? (There is an implied need for improvement in teaching.)

A. We know that people are doing good work, but we don't know how to show it. We could use evidence to demonstrate our effectiveness.

On the other hand, you can be the best presenter there is, but unfortunately that doesn't mean that your students are learning what you want them to learn, so that needs to be verified.

Also, the assessment committee hopes to help create a framework of core competencies that we collectively as an institution agree constitute the general education goals we have in mind for our students as they prepare to transfer or otherwise complete their educational goals at LBCC. Our programs can use these institutional core competencies to align their program goals with the overall college plan, even though each program will also naturally have its program-specific goals.

Q. We're asked to write student learning outcomes for our courses and programs, but what are they anyway? (confusion of SLOs)

A. Student learning outcomes are the knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitude that a student attained at the end of (or as a result of) his or her engagement in a particular set of collegiate experiences. SLOs are statements that typically beging with "Students will be able to . . . " SLOs include a measurable expectation; define outcomes in the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective areas, as appropriate; are learner-centered, not instructor-centered; are results-oriented, i.e., what is the evidence that learning took place? SLOs occur at three levels: course, program, and general education (institution).

Q. Is this just more busy-work? Don't we have enough of this kind of thing? (resistance to more paperwork)

A. In an era of ever-narrowing funding, prepared justification—including assessment in terms that can be understood by higher education administrators—has become extremely useful and will lead out into the future.

Q. Isn't this just a fad that will pass, as so many others have?

A.

SLO is more than a fad; it is an indication of our commitment to our students and our programs to satisfy their information needs.

Performance funding has become an integral part of education. SLOs allows us to demonstrate how we meet our goals. It is here to stay.

Some faculty believe assessment to be a passing fad; however, assessment was integrated into the other regional accreditation reviews over a decade ago. ACCJC was able to evaluate and incorporate lessons learned in other regional areas. http://online.bakersfieldcollege.edu/courseassessment/Section_2_Background/Section2_4Accountability.htm Bakersfield College

Mt.SAC has incorporated SLOs into programs such as graphic arts, psych tech, business and the career institutes. Additionally, VTEA grants have supported SLO training such as Langford and Alverno Institutes over the past 10 years. This year, accreditation has also added impetus to implement SLOs into the assessment process. http://www.mtsac.edu/outcomes/faqs.html
Mt. SAC

We are living in an "age of accountability" where the public, political leadership and governmental organizations are expecting public institutions, including all higher education institutions, to provide periodic reports on the status of their missions and functions. I don't think this is another "fad of the week" but rather a development that is a permanent part of our political and economic reality. The fiscal crises of the states, the growing demand for higher education, and the fierce competition for public funding are major factors driving the accountability movement. Higher education institutions now have to "make their case" in the form of public reports that show that students are gaining what they need to be productive citizens in this nation.

There is little doubt that assessment of higher education in general and student affairs programs, services and facilities in particular is here to stay. Once thought of as just another educational "fad," assessment is now the cornerstone of our ability to plan, improve, and most importantly, to survive. Countless examples of the successful use of assessment to justify and improve our programs, services, and facilities, and to provide systematic information that helps frame policy and practice are available.
University of Wisconsin

Isn't assessment just a passing fad? If so, it's the longest fad I've ever seen! The first assessment conference for higher education took place 18 years ago, and accrediting agencies have shown no signs of reducing their assessment requirements since then.
http://www.hmc.edu/admin/presoffice/assess/faqs.html
Harvey Mudd College

Q. Isn't this an infringement on the principle of academic freedom?

A. Below you will find a definition of academic freedom from the web site of the American Association of University Professors. Asking instructors to declare what they are intending for the students to know and/or be able to do after taking a course does not interfere with the tenants of academic freedom as stated below. Further, asking instructors to devise a means for checking whether students have actually learned the material that they were meant to learn in a course does not interfere with academic freedom. The trouble with using grades to do this is that grades no longer accurately reflect what students know or can do after taking a course. Assessment strategies have been and are being developed to help clarify the purpose of courses, programs, and educational institutions, and to discover whether that purpose is being accomplished.

Academic Freedom

• Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.
• b. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.
• c. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

Q. We're doing just fine without it. (Assessment is medicine only for the sick.)

A. Okay, then let's use assessment to find out what works, and to help us document and build on our successes.

Q. We're already doing it. (Assessment is just old wine in new bottles.)

A. Okay, then let's audit all the assessments we already do to discover what we know and what we don't.

Q. We're far too busy to do it. (Assessment is an "administrivial" burden.)

A. Okay, but since we're already doing it, let's use assessment to see where and how we can save time and effort.

Q. The most important things we do can't/shouldn't be measured. (Assessment is too reductive and quantitative.)

A. And not everything measurable should be measured, but let's see if we can agree on how we can tell when we're succeeding in these most important things.

Q. We'd need more staff and lots more money to do assessment. (Assessment is too complex and expensive.)

A. Since we're unlikely to get more resources, how, what, and where can we piggyback, embed, and substitute?

Q. They'll use the results against us. (Assessment is a trick or a Trojan horse.)

A. They might. So, let's build in strong safeguards against misuse before we agree to assess.

Q. No one will care about or use what we find out. (Assessment is a waste of time.)

A. To avoid that, let's agree not to do any assessments without a firm commitment from stakeholders to use the results.