Page 56 - International Journal of Process Educaiton (Special Issue)

restored the utility of both terms, increasing the potential manuscripts: Differentiating Assessment from Evaluation
for meaningful dialogue or discovery. This strategic
delineation helped to uncover some of the affective
barriers that keep learners from embracing feedback (in
short, because they are used to receiving evaluation and, as recent edition of the Faculty Guidebook includes a series
a result of that expectation, react defensively) and helped
instructors develop more effective ways to frame their
improvement- and growth-directed interventions.
Categorizing Assessment Feedback
The spirit and practice of assessment, as defined in Figure
1, can be found in the pilot for Pacific Crest’s first Process sessors (Jensen, 2007b), Assessing Assessments (Anderson
Education Teaching Institute (Apple, 1991). The materials
describe the processes of assessment and self-assessment
as pivotal with respect to quality learning and teaching.
At the end of this event, organizers sought feedback about
the institute from participants and that feedback led to
major improvements in subsequent Teaching Institutes. As
helpful as that was, the ultimate value of the assessment
feedback was realized when the community analyzed
the feedback it had given. The analysis identified three
critical components of assessment as informed by Process
Education:
1. STRENGTHS: what makes certain aspects of the
Teaching Institute experience powerful, and why
(and later how)
2. AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT: aspect of the
Teaching Institute experience that might be improved,
with recommendations (action plans) on how to do so
3. INSIGHTS: what was learned from the experience
to increase our knowledge about activities and
performances, including design, planning, delivery,
and execution (lessons learned).
SII-assessment (Strengths, Improvements, and Insights)
is the term coined and used in the Faculty Guidebook
(Wasserman, 2007).
Methodical Assessment
A methodology for performing SII-assessment was first
documented in the Teaching institute handbook (Apple,
1995) as a way to help faculty improve their skills in
performing assessment. The methodology was further
refined in the Assessment Institute Handbook (Apple &
Krumsieg, 2002) and given a final polish in the Faculty
Guidebook module Assessment Methodology (Apple &
Baehr, 2007). See Figure 2.
Scholarship on Assessment
Beyond using professional development institutes as a
crucible for implementing a shift towards a culture of as-
sessment, the scholarship of assessment led to two major
54 International Journal of Process Education (February 2016, Volume 8 Issue 1)
as Continuous Improvement Tools (Parker, Fleming, Bey-
erlein, Apple & Krumsieg, 2001) and Keys to Improving
Academic Assessment (Utschig & Apple, 2009). The most
of modules, each of which gives educators the information
and tools they need to begin benefitting from the improved
educational practices and outcomes that assessment offers:
Overview of Assessment (Baehr, 2007b), Distinctions Be-
tween Assessment and Evaluation (Baehr, 2007a), Mindset
for Assessment (Jensen 2007a), Moving Towards an Assess-
ment Culture (Utschig, 2007), Performance Levels for As-
& Watson, 2007), and Turning Evaluation into Assessment
(Watson, 2007).
Professional Development: Advancing the Practice
of Assessment
As part of the ongoing effort to effectively differentiate
assessment from evaluation in order to realize the full
benefits of each process, many Process Education institutes
included as an integral component learning activities
focused on the distinction between the two (Apple &
Krumsieg, 1998), up to and including the Student Success
Institute Handbook (Apple & Krumsieg, 2007) and the
Mentoring Handbook (Apple, 2009). In 2001, with the help
of Stony Brook and Penn State, Pacific Crest designed and
implemented a stand-alone Assessment Institute designed
to help faculty, staff, and administrators experience the
differences in effects, procedures, and outcomes between
an assessment culture (where the mindset is focused on
continuous quality improvement) and an evaluation culture
(where the mindset is focused on rendering judgment based
upon the level of quality) (Apple & Krumsieg, 2002).
Program Review vs. Program Assessment
The picture at the program level was not terribly different
with respect to differentiating assessment from evaluation;
while many colleges practiced program review (an
evaluative practice to determine program feasibility),
few practiced systematic program assessment. Even as
Pacific Crest was increasingly focused on the critical role
assessment plays in the ongoing process of improvement,
a parallel conversation was taking place nationally, as
accrediting bodies sought to help institutions effectively
collect and use evidence of their students’ learning as the
primary indicator of current program quality and to help
improve future program quality (Dan Apple, personal
recollection). The time was right for a Program Assessment
Institute (Apple & Krumsieg, 2001), and one of the first
was held at the Ranger School of SUNY – ESF in 2001,
leading directly to a model implementation of a program
assessment system (Savage, 2002).