(Re)Design Assessment

(Re)Design Assessment: To accompany your unit (re)design, you need to include a proposal for how you would assess the effectiveness unit. You can assess any aspect of the unit that you think might make an interesting contribution to your field(s) of study. We’ll discuss models of assessment during the course that you can draw upon for this portion of the project.
  1. Clear goals—Does the scholar state the basic purposes of his or her work clearly? Does the scholar define objectives that are realistic and achievable? Does the scholar identify important questions in the field?
  2. Adequate preparation—Does the scholar show an understanding of existing scholarship in the field? Does the scholar bring the necessary skills to his or her work? Does the scholar bring together the resources necessary to move the project forward?
  3. Appropriate methods—Does the scholar use methods appropriate to the goals? Does the scholar apply effectively the methods selected? Does the scholar modify procedures in response to changing circumstances?
  4. Significant results—Does the scholar achieve the goals? Does the scholar's work add consequentially to the field? Does the scholar's work open additional areas for further exploration?
  5. Effective presentation—Does the scholar use a suitable style and effective organization to present his or her work? Does the scholar use appropriate forums for communicating work to its intended audiences? Does the scholar present his or her message with clarity and integrity?
  6. Reflective critique—Does the scholar critically evaluate his or her own work? Does the scholar bring an appropriate breadth of evidence to his or her critique? Does the scholar use evaluation to improve the quality of future work?

Glassick, C. E., M. T. Huber, and G. I. Maeroff. 1997. Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

  1. Clear goals—Your unit outcomes should be your clear goals.
  2. Adequate preparation—Your scholarly narrative for your unit (re)design should be your demonstration of adequate preparation or review of literature of what/why/how you are designing and delivering the unit in the manner you are. (Note, you also have to do a scholarly narrative of your assessment. Be sure to focus it on your methods.)
  3. Appropriate methods—This is the "heart" of this particular assignment. You need to design a method for assessing the instructional method (with some form of technology) that you have implemented in your unit (re)design. Assessing whether or not the students learned is only a part of this assessment. You also need to plan to collect data on the design and the delivery of the unit. In short, the (re)design assessment is a research proposal for how you would assess your unit (re)design. It should include:
    • Clear research question: Research proposals should always contain a clear research question (or set of questions) that serve as way to show the specific focus of the project. The research question(s) might appear before or after the “significance” section in a research proposal, depending on the requirements of the proposal and the author’s preference. Some authors like to use the significance section to lead up to a research question, while others prefer to state the question after the introduction of the subject and then use the significance section to justify the importance of the question. Either choice can be effective, but make sure you are following any specific guidelines given for the proposal you are writing.
    • Statement of objectives: At some point in the research proposal, the author must clearly state the objectives and expected outcomes for the research. What do you hope to achieve through this research? What is your purpose in researching this subject? The objectives might be stated in a separate section, or they might be incorporated into the description of the significance of the project. In either case, the author should indicate a clear connection between the research question(s), the intended audience, and the expected outcomes, or purpose, of the research.
    • Description of methodology: More detailed proposals often include a description of the methodology that will be used to complete the project. If the research proposal you are writing requires a description of methodology, we recommend reading Chapters 4 and 5 before proceeding. Depending on the nature of the research project, the description of methodology might look very different. For a research project that proposes conducting secondary research , the author might describe ways that he or she intends to find relevant resources for the project. For a research project that involves primary research, the author should include a specific description of how he or she will conduct that research (conducting observations or interviews, distributing surveys). Additionally, the proposal might include a copy of any interview questions, surveys, or observation methods used in the project.
    • Timeline for the research project: Most research proposals include a timeline for completion of the project, breaking the project down into manageable steps with clear deadlines. Even if a timeline is not required for the research proposal you are writing, it can be helpful to draft a timeline for yourself to make sure that the scope of the project you are proposing is manageable to complete in the amount of time that you have. Don't forget, for this type of project you would need IRB approval.
  4. Significant results—If you implement the unit (re)design, hopefully you will also implement the assessment as well as collect and interpret the data.
  5. Effective presentation—If you collect and interpret the data, why not share it at a conference or write it up for publication? 
  6. Reflective critique—
Resources:
Comments