key: cord-0048877-nfvrirh3
authors: Kinzie, Jillian
title: How to Reorient Assessment and Accreditation in the Time of COVID‐19 Disruption
date: 2020-08-03
journal: nan
DOI: 10.1002/au.30219
sha: e730a108bcca20dfc7b8228680e4473b71bcaade
doc_id: 48877
cord_uid: nfvrirh3

nan

A mong the many issues facing higher education during COVID-19 is uncertainty about the status of student learning outcomes assessment and accreditation. Will necessary shifts in course assignments and assessments affect completion, particularly for those scheduled to graduate this year? Will a suspension (or slowdown) of programlevel assessment put the institution out of compliance with state regulations or accreditation requirements? If accreditation visits are postponed, will the institution find its federal funding in jeopardy? All of these concerns are understandable, and it is good to have them aired and discussed.

However, the disruptions caused by COVID-19 may also provide an occasion for some useful rethinking of assessment. What those disruptions underscore is that decisions about assessment and accreditation must, above all, be sensitive to current realities and do what is best for students and faculty. Rather than aiming for compliance, or sticking with the plan to "just give students the exam and asterisk the results," now is the time to prioritize what people need and embrace compassion-driven assessment, and reassess the fundamental goals of assessment.

To help think about the issues at hand, I offer some practical suggestions for course-and program-level assessment and accreditation demands. Then I suggest we take advantage of this moment to make some meaningful improvements to assessment and accreditation.

Course-level assessment questions occupy a significant amount of the disruption conversation bandwidth. A key topic is the choice to shift to pass/fail grades. Some argue this is an expression of compassionate relief, while others see it as unfair to students, or worse, a violation of federal standards for satisfactory academic progress. In the urgency to assure fairness, some have insisted on implementing online proctored exams, and huge amounts of energy have gone into creating systems to forestall such worries. Others have suggested that this may be the time to modify assignments and exams to make them less amenable to cheating-for instance, inviting students to draw connections between academic learning and the circumstances defining their daily life in this uncertain time.

Debates about these kinds of choices are tough, but they are also fruitful in that they often bring into focus the course outcomes that are really most important and attainable. Some may no longer be feasible, and others may rise up in importance. Consideration of the twin questions "What's really most important for students to learn in this course?" and "What might better assure this learning?" can help reorient the course and instruction, and inspire creativity about what counts as a demonstration of achievement. Once recalibrated, course-level assessment reporting could document the revised outcomes and a discussion of the evidence of learning achievements in spite of the crisis.

Likewise, program assessment activities might usefully be redesigned to invite faculty to reflect on the learning outcomes that are most essential, observe what worked well online, and record what was sacrificed because it could not be reformulated in the shift to remote teaching and learning. Such formative assessments will be invaluable in shaping programs for the (uncertain) next semester and beyond.

Given the known challenges students and faculty are having accessing the internet and materials, and simply finding physical space for studying, this is not the time to assess in the "normal" way. Instead, let's capture the learning that has occurred with creativity and reframed assessments. Then we should invite students and faculty to reflect on what had to be let go, with what consequences, and learn what this suggests for subsequent semesters and for program assessment as a whole.

Accreditors and even the federal government have provided some cover for the many uncertainties facing institutions of higher education right now. The interruption of instruction related to COVID-19 required the federal government to offer flexibility in the application of the standards and processes of accrediting organizations. Accreditors, in turn, announced provisions for the temporary relocation of instruction to distance learning. Colleges and universities that had accreditation self-study or interim reports due this spring were granted extensions, and scheduled site visits were postponed or made virtual.

These announcements help resolve some uncertainties about assessment that institutions face today. Even more, they may be a useful reminder that the most important thing institutions can do in these circumstances is make decisions that are sensitive to current realities, document action, reflect on what can be recouped, and value this formative assessment to inform future work.

Lingering uncertainty about what accreditors expect can fuel a compliance approach that aims for the path of least resistance. This would be especially unfortunate, as a compliance mindset contradicts many recent developments in assessment and accreditation. For example, substantive improvements across all the regional accreditors are increased expectations for tracking and improving equity in student success outcomes. Given COVID-19's complete change to nearly all aspects of the learning environment, this may be a good time to assess equity. Invite faculty and staff to detail the challenges they notice regarding equity for learning in this crisis. In what ways are students struggling in their changed circumstances? Likewise, what resilience and achievements are students demonstrating? These sorts of equity questions can provide useful formative assessment and be a way to be sensitive to students' changed circumstances.

Accreditors have also become more insistent on assuring quality in online instruction. While the emergency shift to online courses is in no way a test of capacity to deliver remote instruction, it can be an opportunity to assess what faculty and students need to be successful and to identify what works better. Institutions can also parlay the teaching online crash course that faculty received into more intentional faculty development.

The bottom line is this: The disruptions caused by COVID-19 are an opportunity for improvement. Assessment is now positioned to take advantage of recent developments aimed at strengthening its purpose and meaning. Positive trends in assessment practice and in accreditation standards, including the adoption of essential learning outcomes for all students and greater attention to equity and educational attainment, can help prioritize assessment activities in this time of crisis. For example, encouraging faculty to home in on assuring essential learning outcomes in a course or program could focus attention on the most vital learning outcomes and lessen concern about more peripheral outcomes that may be lost.

Culturally responsive equitable assessment suggests the benefits of providing students the opportunity to choose from a variety of approaches or design how they will be assessed. This approach could take the place of a uniform exam that does not take into account our newly changed circumstances. Faculty would do well to offer students agency and encouragement to demonstrate their learning in a format or manner that works best for them or that asks them to apply their learning to an aspect of the current crisis or to their shelter-at-home circumstances.

Assessment and accreditation during the COVID-19 pandemic must prioritize the most important learning outcomes while adapting to the realities of our situation. Focus on what you and your closest colleagues determine to be most important to understand about student learning and educational quality. Ask students about their experience and invite them to reflect on what they learned. A thoughtfully reoriented assessment should serve these purposes. ■

The Assessment Institute, hosted by IUPUI, is the nation's oldest and largest higher education event of its type, offering more than 200 educational sessions

Equity, and Inclusion • Faculty Development • Global Learning • Graduate and Professional Education • HIPs in the States (High Impact Practices), including ePortfolios • Learning Improvement • NILOA • STEM Education • Student Affairs Programs and Services Additional Presentation Topics Include: • Accreditation • Assessment in General Education • Assessment in All Major Fields • Assessment Methods • Assessment in Community Colleges • Assessment in Online Courses/Programs • Competency-Based Education • Emerging Trends in Assessment • Institution-Wide Data Collection/Use • Leadership for Assessment • Use of Technologies in Assessment

Please note we are extending the conference by one day-through Wednesday, October 28-since we are shortening each day to accommodate a schedule suitable for the major U.S. time zones