The Chair's Role in Assurance of Learning

Abstract

Assurance of learning relies on assessment to ascertain whether courses deliver content as described in the catalog, affirm departmental mission, meet compliance standards, and uphold university expectations. Its goal is continual improvement. Problems occur when chairs do not fully understand assessment basics. For instance, academic units often rely on student evaluations to measure teaching effectiveness. Their value has eroded as institutions moved from paper surveys conducted in class without the teacher being present to online surveys conducted when and whether students decide to opt in. Nevertheless, evaluations are still being used as evidence of excellence, playing a role in faculty raises and in promotion and tenure cases. Low response rates plague the student evaluation process. Moreover, high numerical scores by themselves do not factor in whether lesson plans deviated from catalog descriptions, incorporated new discoveries or scholarly methods, aligned content in multisection courses, and helped students advance in degree programs. Those are aspects of assessment that measure quality of coursework and whether desired outcomes are actually achieved. When chairs understand assessment practices, they compensate for such oversights and critically evaluate curricular effectiveness in advancing their units via the mission and standards that define them. As a past on-site evaluator for the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC), I realize that faculty resistance can impede assessment. Professors typically view assurance of learning as an unrewarded encroachment on their time; neither are they motivated by meeting accreditation or compliance standards. However, they typically participate in discussions about student learning. As such, chairs must prove that outcomes assessment is beneficial (Stitt-Bergh, Rickards, and Jones 2016). Success is directly associated with the chair's ability to work with faculty in explaining departmental mission, compliance or accreditation standards, and the curriculum's role in strategic and long-range planning. Chairs also must know the measures and means to collect, assemble, and act on any generated data in outcomes assessment (Feuerstein 2015). Some chairs delegate those tasks to a professor, staff member, or curriculum committee. This eventually undermines the process. Administrators must take the lead so that assurance of learning becomes part of departmental culture. These questions address important matters but fail to explain concepts that define assurance of learning, chief among them the perception of quality (indirect measures) versus evidence of quality (direct measures). By knowing those tenets, chairs not only can facilitate faculty discussions about assessment but also can evaluate any existing or future outcomes plan and whether it affirms learning goals and meets institutional and/or compliance standards. Questions about learning goals, which are vital in assessment, can be found in departmental mission statements. If departments lack such statements, chairs must create them in dialogue with alumni, faculty, the dean, and the provost (beyond the scope of this article). As an example, here is the mission statement for Iowa State's Greenlee School of Journalism and Communication: “The School strives to serve students, the university, professional communicators and the general public of Iowa, the nation and the world through teaching, scholarship, service and professional outreach activities.” The statement lists eight specific ways for faculty to fulfill the mission, including educating students for careers, promoting the First Amendment, fostering scholarship that informs industry, emphasizing diversity and multiculturalism, embracing ethics, using technology to inform society, and engaging in service to the university and community. The school assesses course outcomes based on those tenets. Moreover, as an accredited unit, we must comply with eight ACEJMC standards. Our lesson plans must honor First Amendment tenets, demonstrate an understanding of diversity and multiculturalism, present images creatively, apply ethical principles, write clearly across platforms, know numerical and statistical concepts, and use communication technology. To assess whether courses meet all these standards, the Greenlee School surveys faculty, asking if lectures cover any of these grounds. Course mapping provides a comprehensive overview of pedagogy and whether students are getting what they paid for upon earning a degree. Mapping also indicates whether there is a curricular need for one or more outcomes. In addition, it can expose duplication and unnecessary prerequisites. The Greenlee School has a detailed assessment plan that undergoes revision periodically. This is published on our website for public viewing (see Iowa State University 2018). The plan lists specific indirect and direct measures according to the following criteria: type of data, when the data was collected, who collected it, results, and how results were implemented in the curriculum. The university also shares “Assessments and Reports,” listing best practices (Iowa State University 2022a), and “Assessment Tools and Resources,” listing workshop archives and reports (Iowa State University 2022b). Finally, the Greenlee School includes assessment practices in its annual review template. Professors are asked what changes they made in their courses during the academic year. More important, they are asked why they made those changes so that the school can gather additional data for assessment reports. Indirect measures from annual reviews might include recommendations from students, faculty mentors, guest speakers, or curriculum committees. Direct measures might include alumni and professionals evaluating journalism portfolios or advertising/public relations campaigns. Particularly significant are recommendations from internship providers. Because we include these questions in annual reviews, professors know that raises are in part based on assurance of learning. That justifies their time investment and elevates assessment as part of departmental culture. Michael Bugeja is distinguished professor of liberal arts and sciences at the Iowa State University of Science and Technology. These views are his own. Email: bugeja@iastate.edu