Lehrman American Studies Center

A few years ago it fell upon me to become the inflictor-in-chief of assessment upon my colleagues (as chair of the relevant committee). By and large, I think, we avoided educational-ese and most forms of stupidity.

We fought pretty hard for the principle (which now is fairly well accepted in SACS) that faculty judgment is the primary way by which a department assesses whether it is doing what it says it is doing. That is, we give much weight to narrative reports, either by the department as a whole or by external reviewers.

We also use some quantitative data, generated both internally and externally; we take systematic looks at small projects that are used for ordinary learning and teaching; we use commercially provided tests. And we rely heavily on the Senior Seminar.

Why is this satisfactory, to us and to the assessment gurus? Because, if you take the job of self-examination seriously, you'll approach it like a scholar. How do you know that Plato meant X and not Y? How do you know that factor Z was a major role in the Constitutional Convention, even more than W? Some of the "evidence" might be quantitative; other evidence is argumentative. We use both.

Some things you can measure ("students can identify the source of a quote"). Others, at least you can identify (e.g., "students are able to construct a coherent argument"). Others, you can only aspire to ("students have a deeply ingrained love for wisdom"). Well, all of these would be features of a good department, and we should talk about how we work at all of them.

So, my advice to departments under the accreditation gun would be, first, to realize that accreditation need not be the enemy. It's more like a new form of technology, or perhaps a major scholarly work, recently published in your area of specialization. Is it a competitor, to be fought off? Or does it offer complementary insights, some of which must be rejected as a rule, others used with caution, and others embraced in context?

Second, suppose that you are a senior literary scholar who is asked by the Literature Department in the University of South Zemland to be their external reviewer. Their approach to literature and their pedagogy are different than yours. What information would you ask of them?

Thinking along these lines might lead you to identify what you are already doing that might be used to prove to someone else that you are doing a good job.

Now, if you don't think you have any evidence at all that you think could answer the question, well, then you have a problem. But if you are a serious person, a conscientious faculty member, a sincere faculty leader, you probably have some kind of evidence.

If you don't take the initiative—if you don't prove, using your own means, that you are doing a good job—then expect external people to come up with ignorant means to make your life miserable.

But I've seen department after department come up with creative, appropriate evidence for their own excellence (or, as the case may be, lack thereof) and receive nothing but commendation.

PS. I've also seen a few departments come up with garbage because they thought that we were stoopid and they needed to come down to our level. That is also very telling.

PPS. I'll confess one major area of initial frustration. At one point, we were asked to turn all of our paragraphs into rows in a grid, and all our sentences into cells. My frustration with this was so great that I made other people’s indignation pale in comparison. It also earned me 2 trips to the ER and a large ambulance bill that I didn't need.

But, over time, I've learned to appreciate the neatness of the approach, and particularly its rigor. I've seen departments use this "grid" approach with great success and to their (secret) satisfaction.

I would still complement it with narrative, though, if I had the time.

Tags: No subjects