There are a variety of factors that affect the assessment process, however there are four that stand out above all others. The first of these is the levels of student motivation on assessment activities, the second is the increased faculty workloads that result from assessment, the third is the tension between using assessment for accountability and improvement, and the fourth concerns faculty attitudes toward assessment. All four of these factors are pervasive and have been cited frequently in the assessment literature.
The problem of student motivation on assessment tests has several aspects. One is the problem of recruiting students for assessment activities. Since assessment research comes under the purview of Institutional Review Boards (IRB's), it is subject to the usual concerns about voluntary participation, confidentiality of data collected, and risk/benefit ratios which apply to other research involving human participants. Thus, many assessment activities must be voluntary to obtain IRB approval, which then creates problems in recruiting student participants. A second and related aspect of the problem concerns how to create reasons for students to participate so that representative samples of students are included in assessment research. Since most assessment activities are intended to evaluate programs, there is often little benefit for students in participating in assessment activities. Occasionally instructors agree to offer extra credit for participation. Financial incentives have also been suggested, but this option would be too costly to use on a regular basis. A third aspect of the problem is how to motivate students to do their best on assessment tests, once they have agreed to participate. Unless their are rewards for good performance on a test, including getting feedback on their performance, there is often little reason for students to be concerned with their test performance. WSU has encountered these problems in the assessment of quantitative skills performance, as well as in the participation rates in our alumni surveys and other surveys. We have been able to deal with this problem successfully in our writing assessment, because this is mandatory, and there are consequences for students performance.
The second factor affecting assessment is the increase in faculty workload that occurs when assessment activities become institutionalized. A good example of this is WSU's writing assessments and writing program. Our writing placement examination is mandatory for all freshmen students, and the junior level writing portfolio is also mandatory for all students who expect to graduate from WSU. The writing placement examination results in between 2,000 and 2,500 written results which must be read and rated annually. The writing portfolio produces a similar number of results, but includes three written papers and two written exams from every student, which must also be read and rated annually. WSU faculty are recruited and trained to read and rate the student's examinations. Students are required to pay a fee for both the placement examination and the writing portfolio, to cover the costs of preparing test materials and to compensate faculty who read and rate the essays. In addition to the increased work of reading and rating the exams, there is also the additional work of faculty in writing intensive courses who are expected to increase the number of writing assignments, to grade them, and to provide feedback to students. This effort has substantially increased faculty workloads in many classes, since each academic department now has at least two writing intensive courses. A third increase in workload derives simply from the amount of assessment data that becomes available for further analyses. After six years of collecting writing placement data and writing portfolio data, WSU now has an entire room devoted to storage of these written documents, and data on over 20,000 students. The task of analyzing this volume of information to produce meaningful results is considerable and cannot be accomplished without dedicated resources and staff.
The third factor affecting assessment is the tension between the accountability uses of assessment and its use for institutional improvement. Assessment data that is obtained for institutional improvement is more likely to be accurate than data that is obtained for accountability. A good example of this comes from the area of classroom assessment techniques (CATs), which a number of WSU faculty are using. As long as classroom assessment techniques are used by instructors to obtain immediate feedback on their own performance in the classroom, then the results can be used to make improvements in their teaching. However, if instructors are required to report the results of these assessments for accountability purposes, then it is very likely that instructors will find ways of assessing students to produce consistently positive results. A similar problem exists at the institutional level when assessment results are used to hold us accountable to the state. No institution wants to admit its faults, especially if negative consequences follow. Therefore, assessment data collected for accountability purposes will most often be quite positive, and consequently of limited usefulness.
The fourth problem is regards to faculty attitudes toward assessment, which often are at best lukewarm. Many faculty view assessment as additional work for them with limited payoffs, particularly if there are negative consequences for outcomes that may appear as substandard. Assessment also may be seen as taking time away from faculty goals of conducting research and teaching. Faculty may also perceive that there are few rewards for engaging in assessment activities.
