Direct and Indirect Measurement for Undergrad and Graduates

The use of direct and indirect measures are not appropriate at the undergrad and graduate levels. As direct measures observe or examine student behaviors, attitudes, skills, or knowledge, indirect measures assess apparent learning and are used in addition to direct measures (Marquette, 2012-2013). Both methods can enhance student learning but not when used together. Curricular programs can also assess student development and learning through self-reporting than simply using direct measures (Marquette, 2012-2013).

Indirect levels should focus more on other forms of reporting aside from surveys and student self-assessment as both have the highest percentage of usage. Incorporating more interviews, peer comparison or focus groups offers other ways of assessment and student interaction. It can also provide more detailed answers than true/false or multiple-choice survey offers. Direct measures currently use oral presentations, research papers, and locally developed exams or quizzes as a common assessment. However, more attention needs to be given to the low scoring methods listed in the table. Marquette programs used numerous measures and multiple learning outcomes (Marquette, 2012-2013) and there is a significant percentage difference in the commonly and seldom used measures. Therefore, portfolios, in-class discussions, and pre/post measures should be present more often at the graduate and undergraduate levels.

In looking to balance assessment at each learning level, recommendations can be proposed for change. At the program level, varied approaches in student learning assessment and can't be combined in the program (Marquette, 2012-2013). Therefore, the first step would be to establish a standard or universal assessment to acquire data across all programs. This will help in providing more accurate results as each comparison would be equal. At the co-curricular level, one should include more direct measures in assessing student development and learning. Thus far, co-curricular programs are assessing this information from mostly indirect measures such as surveys and student self-assessments (Marquette, 2012-2013). More so, even with the current reported changes in this program reporting, there aren't any changes to resources and minimal changes in professional development and monitoring.

Integrated Learning Outcomes

The original integrated core learning outcomes (ICLO) from Marquette that are measured using senior experience and capstone course assignments are listed below:

The four ICLO’s that are newly ranked in terms of importance and personal opinion is as follows:

The reason for the change in integrated learning outcomes is mainly due to the first ordering stemming from criterion. To address proficiency issues the second ICLO should be listed first. This integrated outcome was the most regularly assessed and 28 programs had coursework in relation to the oral and written outcomes (Marquette, 2012-2013). The first ICLO should be listed as the second ICLO as applying perspective concepts and traditions criterion should be completed after appropriate mode communications in audiences. The fourth ICLO should come third as diversity was highly valued and 94 percent of ratings were on the upper end of this scale. The third outcome, integration of knowledge into the vision of life outcome, should be ranked last. The reason stems from this outcome being the least assessed and the most challenging to engage (Marquette, 2012-2013).

Institutional Outcomes vs Graduating Senior Survey

The current institutional outcomes and graduating survey for Marquette University are listed below:

In matching elements from the graduating senior survey (GSS) to the specific core and institutional outcomes, the following new table was created.

Outcomes

The outcomes that are being well met are analyzing quantitative information and suitable technology usage tools in the field. Both outcomes have over fifty percent of seniors noting these outcomes had a great deal of contributions in their education (Marquette, 2012-2013). The outcomes that are needed for attention are appreciation in history's value of understanding the present and past, as this result fell at the bottom with only 32 percent of seniors agreeing this topic stemmed from their Marquette education.

Recommendations

The proposed recommendations for change to address perceived proficiency issues are to focus more on the outcomes that score low or had no contribution to their Marquette education. Additionally, all scores should be much higher in every outcome under the column labeled a great deal. The highest percentage only made it a little over fifty percent. Therefore, the emphasis needs to contain more research and teaching in every outcome to decrease the proficiency issues. According to Marquette (2012-2013), “graduating seniors are most likely to credit their Marquette education with contributing to their ability to write, analyze quantitative information, and use technology” (p. 11). However, recognizing the past, and present history understanding issues, and evaluating data are what seniors are not crediting in their education from the university.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the use of direct and indirect measures are not appropriate at the undergrad and graduate levels. Indirect levels should focus more on other forms of reporting aside from surveys and student self-assessment and more attention needs to be given to the low scoring methods listed under direct levels. In the newly ranked four ICLO’s, the reason for the change is mainly due to the first ordering stemming from what was standard and not what is best. Furthermore, a new table was created from the graduating senior survey to the specific core and institutional outcomes. The proposed recommendations for change to address perceived proficiency issues are to focus more on the outcomes that score low or had no contribution to their Marquette education. Although the current methods are not fully using every measurement to the fullest in assessment reporting, it has helped students grow in their abilities to assume leadership responsibilities and apply what they have learned to their challenges (Marquette, 2012-2013).

References

• Marquette University. (2012–2013). Institutional assessment report. Retrieved from http://www.marquette.edu/assessment/documents/InstitutionalAssessmentReport2012-13Final.pdf.