Assessment, as defined by George Brown's College's Assessment of Learning Policy, is "Any form of student activity in a course for which a grade is granted by the faculty member" (A006; 2019-09-01).

Formative Assessment

Describes when we examine how students are doing in our courses, which then leads us to look at ways we can improve the learning process/environment. Thus, we are assessing FOR learning. This assessment will influence the ways in which we teach in order to improve students' learning. It provides both student and teacher with feedback on the student's knowledge, skills and abilities. It allows reflection on how to improve/adjust both the learning for the students and the teaching modalities of the teacher. Formative assessments also help us track how well students are moving towards the achievement of course outcomes.

Summative Assessment

Describes how we examine student learning, usually within the context of, or weighed against stated outcomes. Thus, the assessment OF learning is critical here.  This description of assessment is the one used most interchangeably with the term Evaluation and is where evaluation and assessment overlap. It is used to gather information on how well the students have achieved the outcomes set out in the course and details the achievement of the outcomes.

Evaluation

Describes a process whereby performance is judged against a standard. In our context, the performance of students on a variety of measures is rated against the outcomes laid out by individual courses.

Outcomes-Based Assessments

Allow students to demonstrate their achievement of learning outcomes in ways that are relevant, evidence-based and accommodate the increasing diversity of learners. Providing a variety of assessment methods within a course increases the likelihood that a larger proportion of students will have opportunities to effectively demonstrate their learning (Driscoll & Wood (2007), Developing Outcomes-based Assessment for Learner-Centered Education).

Feedback

Provides students with information about their progress in learning–it does not need to be tied to a mark or a grade. Formal feedback provides information to students specifically related to the course learning outcomes. It can be verbal or written. Informal feedback is less directly attached to a specific learning outcome. This kind of feedback is most often verbal and usually occurs in the classroom. It can be as simple as the teacher recognizing a good question!

Rubrics

Are tools that can be used to explicitly outline what is expected of a given task. Rubrics can be used in evaluation with scores assigned to each level of expectation. Rubrics can also be used to encourage students to assess their own work through formative or self-assessment.

Authentic Assessment

Describes a particular model of evaluation that requires students to perform real-world tasks to demonstrate meaningful application of the expected knowledge and skills. Jon Mueller described it as "a process in which students are asked to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful application of essential knowledge and skills."

Self-Assessment

Is the process whereby students consider their own work within the context of a given task.

Universal Design Learning (UDL)

Is based on the work of architect Ron Mace who pioneered the term 'Universal Design' to describe access to buildings for people with varying abilities. The term 'Universal Design for Learning' is used within the education field to describe ways in which we can ensure there are: 1) multiple means of representing information; 2) multiple means of expressing knowledge; and 3) multiple means of engagement in learning for our students. You can review the principles of UDL in Module 4.

Now that you have developed your course learning outcomes, the next step is to determine how to assess them. If your outcomes are well aligned, your learners will be working towards some key deliverables. If you refer back to the Graduate Profile from module 2 your colleagues, PAC members and others will have identified some important deliverables they expect from employees as they enter the field. The skills and knowledge required to complete these deliverables are reflected in your course learning outcomes and as you assess these outcomes you are building your learners competence and confidence in demonstrating these skills in ways expected by your industry. The information in this module is adapted from the HEQCO Guide to Learning Outcomes and Skills.  You can read more details here heqco.ca/data-and-resources/learning-outcomes-resource-room/assessing-learning-outcomes-skills/

The intentional integration of formative and summative evaluations that scaffold or build across course learning outcomes towards program outcomes is called constructive alignment. You can read more about constructive alignment  here www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/constructive-alignment/

We use this approach to assessment and evaluation to ensure a high-quality learning experience with internal and external validity. In a constructively aligned course, the learning outcomes, learning experiences, and assessments work together to achieve and reinforce the course learning outcomes. These experiences will then stack and scaffold across the program and ensure the adequate achievement of the program learning outcomes. This is shown in the diagram below:

[INSERT learning-cycle-assessment-diagram_orig.png here]

As descriptions of success, learning outcomes are tied to assessment and are most effective if they take place in the context of your discipline and are representative of activities students would be expected to do as graduates in an entry-level position.  We call this approach to evaluation Authentic Assessment.  This is a particular model of evaluation that requires students to perform real-world tasks to demonstrate meaningful application of the expected knowledge and skills. Your PAC has identified some ways your learners can be authentically evaluated.

Some of these evaluations can be integrated into your classroom setting and some may be better conceptualized as a capstone assignment completed in a WIL experience.

Teaching strategies, learning activities, assessments, and resources should all be purposefully designed and organized to help students achieve the course learning outcomes. This is best achieved by continuing the backwards-design process we have been using throughout these modules. This approach will ensure your experiences are approached developmentally/sequentially to allow students to meet the expectations of the program level outcomes from the first semester to the last.

The process of scaffolding and stacking learning can be complicated and often requires looking at the program in its entirety to organize the learning within and across courses so your learners end up where they need to be at graduation. Firming up your understanding of Bloom's Taxonomy as it relates to the skills, knowledge, and attitudes of graduates in your discipline will be the first step in employing a backwards design approach to assessment development.  In this section, you will access broad descriptions of how learning can scaffold adapted from Biggs and Collins (1982) work on Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) approach and relate them to the Bloom's Taxonomy and your discipline-specific requirements. To record this work for your post-test, please complete Part 2 of the Module 6 post-test document. If you'd like to review Bloom's Taxonomy you can refer back to Module 3.

SOLO Levels of Learning

Pre-Structural Level of Learning 

This level occurs before the learning cycle begins. Students do not understand what is expected of them or why. Since this is the level at which students are expected to begin a course or program, the only assessment tasks should be diagnostic in purpose. They are intended to elicit information about the nature and extent of student understanding or misunderstanding of the discipline and often the role of the student and expectations of studying at the post-secondary level. Students in this stage are learning where they are in relation to the larger context of the discipline and the process or road map they'll use to achieve the program level outcomes.

Uni-Structural Level of Learning

This is considered to be the first level of the learning cycle. Students have moved from not understanding and misunderstanding to a preliminary or introductory level understanding of the most basic concepts of the discipline. Learning at this level tends to be quantitative in nature as students add facts, terminology, and concepts to their repertoire. What they know at this level is likely to be reductive and although they might be able to make obvious connections between these pieces of information, they don't create useful meaning from those connections. There are many forms an assessment at this level can take, but they are often inauthentic in nature.

Multi-Structural Level of Learning

At this level, students have learned many facts and ideas about the concepts in your discipline. This quantitative increase in learning does not result in greater depth or complexity in how they understand those fact or their relation to one another. They often learn each fact independently of one another (despite some common connections) and there is little integration or organization of the information. The assessment activities at this level are much like those found in the uni-structural level but with the expectation of an ability to work with a greater amount of information. They continue to be inauthentic in nature.

Relational Level of Learning

At this stage, students move from quantitative increases to qualitative increases. This means that learning is no longer focused on the amount of information, but rather a deepening understanding and the creation of meaning. Learning at this level will depend on the student being able to generalize and abstract from the particular bits of information from the previous levels. It requires students to draw increasingly complex connections and distinctions between facts, theories, ideas, actions, and purposes. They should be able to create their own narrative about what they are learning, integrating information from across their courses to create a sense of the whole and elaborating on these connections and disparities. Students at this level are becoming competent in the application of the information to create and problem solve. To assess this level of learning more involved and time-consuming assessments are required. These assessments are often course length or multi-stage projects that draw information from previous, current, and co-occurring courses. WIL projects and capstones are also ways to capture this level of learning. This is often the level required in post-secondary program outcomes and as such students should spend a significant portion of the final portion of their program being assessed at this level.

Extended Abstract Level of Learning

In this stage, there is a qualitative increase in students learning. This stage can be the most difficult to predict, pinpoint, and assess. This level of learning is often thought to exist outside the formal learning cycle as students are able to abstract and generalize beyond the course material. Students are able to transfer and apply concepts to new information, situations, and experiences. Students are beginning to develop arguments and theories of their own and are heading towards being able to make unique contributions to the discipline. A student's ability to achieve this level of learning is often demonstrated in their behaviours that are associated with lifelong learning rather than simply discipline-specific concepts.  All program-level outcomes should expect students to perform at the Relational and Extended Abstract level of learning as demonstrated in this diagram from the HEQCO guide.

[INSERT biggs-solo-diagram_orig.png here]

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) encourages “assessment by design,” but what does that mean specifically for educators? How can you use the UDL framework to design and reflect on assessments? The CAST organization provides some tips for assessment. The first set includes considerations at the program-level to ensure the UDL perspective persists past the design phase.  Starting a new program is a great opportunity to build an ongoing community of reflection and development to see your curriculum through this stage and into the roll out and eventually program review.

Build communities of practice that support curricular modifications from assessment data

Both formative and summative assessments can be used to reflect on the purpose and effectiveness of instructional materials and learning strategies. Collaborating with colleagues around these topics to collect and analyze data, discuss outcomes, examine challenges, and recommend solutions can be both effective and empowering.

Align assessments to learning goals

When the learning goals are clear, assessments allow educators and learners to observe and measure whether learners have achieved the intended goal. Consider designing assessments alongside learning goals so that you can ensure you are measuring the intended goals of your lesson.

Reflect on summative assessments for future lesson design

Summative assessments focus on learner performance after instruction has occurred, such as unit exams, state summative tests, final project artifacts, or chapter summaries. They are often used for accountability purposes, a criterion for admittance, or to compare learner performance. Summative assessments can also be used to reflect on ways to improve teaching strategies and to further design goal-directed learning environments.

Offer authentic opportunities for assessment

Offering relevant, authentic options for assessment can help learners transfer usable knowledge and understand the “what,” the “how,” and the “why” of their learning.

[INSERT udl-assessment-diagram_orig.png here]

It would be worth revisiting the UDL principles when thinking about your assessments. You can access the CAST website here www.cast.org/learn/about In particular, consider diving deeper into ENGAGEMENT and ACTION & EXPRESSION.

Human and Essential Employability Skills

As you have moved through the new program development process you have done some work to identify the Human Skills and/or Essential Employability Skills.  Most notably in Module 2, you completed the Graduate Profile where you indicated the important "soft-skills" or interpersonal skills your graduates will need. You also collected this information from your PAC. You can now use this information to determine what knowledge and skills to prioritize and how to scaffold them across your program curriculum. 

This knowledge and skillsets should be given the same consideration as those associated with your program learning outcomes. While these assessments are embedded in individual courses it is important to consider how they can be arranged to scaffold across the program. As a resource to help you consider how to articulate your scaffolding of this knowledge and skillsets, consider reviewing the attached VALUE rubrics. These rubrics were developed by teams of faculty experts representing colleges and universities across the United States. The rubrics articulate fundamental criteria for each "soft skill", with performance descriptors demonstrating progressively more sophisticated levels of attainment. 

The core expectations articulated in all 15 of the VALUE rubrics can be translated into the language of individual disciplines. Note: the rubrics are intended for planning use in evaluating and discussing student learning, not for grading. 

You can download the VALUE rubrics below:

[Insert value_rubrics.pdf here]

Student Workload Mapping

A student is only able to accomplish a certain amount of educational tasks in a certain period of time. Insufficient time allocation leads to students feeling themselves overworked (student overload), which in turn increases their tendency to abandon the use of the deep learning strategy and encourages them to move towards surface learning. The relationship between student workload, study material, study time and learning strategies has become evident in learning research since the 1970s. The essence of this research can be summarized as follows:

1. When the amount of study material is excessive, the student tries to learn by rote only the minimum required to pass the exam. This kind of engagement may result in moderate success on tests and exams, but it is nearly impossible to complete more detailed assessment methods. As such, there is an important connection between assessment and other assigned course activities.
2. A high course content leads to students having difficulties recognizing the relevant from irrelevant, which directs their learning towards memorizing (often) irrelevant details.
3. Experience of overload is a central factor in defining a student’s working habits. Students experiencing overload are prone to aiming their efforts at surface learning. Therefore, course activities can drive the creation and/or reinforcement of student work habits. 
4. Experience of overload can be only partially explained on the basis of the actual workload (the actual time used on study activities). Several factors connected with the student’s learning environment, learning history and situation in life also affects the experience. (Karjalainen, A., Alha, K., & Jutila, S., 2006)

From the perspective of teaching, the student’s need for time has to always be estimated from the viewpoint of a deep approach to learning. No course included in the curriculum should be allocated time on the basis that it can be passed without real, actual learning. The less time the student has, the more likely his or her learning efforts are to turn into superficial and strategic survival efforts. It is less likely that a student enters a course with the mindset to "just pass" it is more likely that disposition is developed over the timeline of the course as they start to experience overload. The time estimation is based on a number of factors, some of them will be in control of the curriculum planners (you) and some of them will not; however, all should be considered. These factors include:

• ability and talent
• motivation
• quality of the student’s previous knowledge
• the difficulty of the course
• quality of teaching
• quality of counselling and other support services
• taxonomy level of the learning outcome 
• number of competing assignments
• number of competing course activities 
• family issues
• student employment during semesters
• food and housing security
• access to resources (internet, textbook, etc.)

It is vital to realize that by determining the time needed for deep learning, you create a frame for the student’s studies. The allocation of time is in itself an effective act of teaching.

In your next meet up series with your Curriculum Specialist, you will work together to complete a student workload map. A template of this map is included below.

Download a copy of the Student Workload Map and use it to draft the assessments and assignments for your students.  You can work with your CS to balance the workload map and use it to guide the placement of assignments across your courses. You may also find it helpful to use the workload map to help inform the types of assessments you create for each course. 

[INSERT studentworkloadmap__1_.xlsx here]