Assessment: How will learners demonstrate learning?

Just as there are multiple names for what we’ve come to call Aims (goals, outcomes, objectives), we can identify a number of namings clustered under the umbrella of Assessment: 

• Formative assessments or activities students complete before, during, or after class, such as quizzes, homework, small group problem solving, and reflective activities including self-assessment. We place these in the category of Activities.

• Summative assessments, which may include a variety of formats within the following categories: high-stakes exams, performances, presentations, research-based assignments, field work or lab experiments, and community-based internships. We use the word Assessment to encompass all of these.

When you are satisfied with the alignment of your aims and assessments, decide when they should occur during the semester. One approach is to insert your tests/exams and assignments in a blank course outline before you insert information about the weekly class sessions’ activities and content possibilities. Creating an outline where all you see are the assessment measures can help you determine whether the assessments are correctly spaced and sequenced, whether you have an appropriate variety of assessments to measure your learning outcomes, and whether the assessments will support the student learning and development you hope will occur during the semester, and whether you have created an appropriate workload for you and your learners.

We offer the following resources to support you in planning for assessments:

• Review the short “Educative Assessment” YouTube video to take in characteristics, examples, and advantages associated with this approach to forward-looking assessments that align with application of learning in alignment with course aims, a contrast to conventional backward-looking exams that align with coverage. 
• Review “UDL and Assessment,” a webpage that highlights the how and why of “multiple measures of assessment,” an accessible course design process. 
• Create a Course Schedule, making use of examples embedded in the Syllabus Activity #3 google document, and in the “How do I create an overall assessment plan for my course?” webpage that presents developing an assessment plan with multiple measures of learning rather than one type of high-stakes testing. 

Review three subpages within CEI’s “Assessments: Create assessments that promote learning for all students” website as further springboards for you assessment reflection and decision-making.

• The “Types of Assessments” webpage provides analysis of challenges/advantages, strategies for supporting learners, and ways of creating, administering, and grading each of the following types of assessments:
  • Essay exam 
  • Multiple choice exam or quiz
  • Academic paper  
  • Project – individual or group
  • Skill observation
  • List of other assessments to consider using
• Developed in consultation with disabilities scholars, the “Equitable Assessments” webpage links examples to resources for topics including 
  • varying types of assessments, providing opportunities for choice, 
  • increasing awareness the role implicit bias may play in developing and grading assessments, and 
  • communicating transparent expectations in clear language and digitally accessible documents. 
• The “Alternative Assessments” webpage lists possibilities for four assessment types: writing, design, media, and research projects. The page closes with a video breaking down how one instructor related traditional exams with jigsaw-based team activities for an alternative assessment approach.

Perhaps you’ve already identified types of assessments that align with your course aims, or want to do a deeper dive into an alternative assessment that you can sequence across a semester so that students gain practice and feedback over time. For that deeper reflection, we’ve created five “adventure” folders to share three types of resources: scholarship of teaching articles, praxis-oriented teacher essays, and specific examples of a particular assessment approach: 

• Adventure 1 “Team-Based Learning” - google folder
• Adventure 2 “Field-Based Learning” - google folder
• Adventure 3 “Case-Based Learning” - google folder
• Adventure 4 “Writing-Based Major Assignments - google folder
• Adventure 5 “Final and Multiple Choice Exams - google folder

As a starting point for designing new or updated assignments and assessments given the presence of GenAI, you might review  “The SHARE Technique” open access article. The SHARE framework components involve working out how/why to create:

• Strong and Authentic assessments,
• High Price for False Information grading practices,
• Additional and/or Other Assessment Techniques options,
• Reflection/Critical Analysis feedback, and
• ways to Expand the Assignment into Multiple Pieces. 

CEI’s public and regularly updated resources include the “Generative AI Teaching and Learning Resources” google document, which is also part of CEI’s “Teaching with GenAI” website.

In addition to the three assessment-focused resources listed in this section, 

• Monash University, as part of its “Generative AI and Assessment” webpage, offers suggestions for updating assignment prompts, creating alternative assessments, targeting higher order thinking, using formative assessment, as well as future-focused and alternative assessments.
• A webpage focused on “30 Ideas for Generating AI-Resilient Assessments” features strategies, ideas and examples for designing ChatGPT and AI-proof assignments and assessments that promote critical thinking, creativity, and human interaction among students” in graduate and undergraduate courses, and in multiple formats, in online and inperson campus and community, field and laboratory learning spaces
• The crowdsource collection “101 creative ideas to use AI in education” (available as a webpage from which you can download a PDF) crosses disciplines in its university-oriented, teacher-created examples. The document does not include a Table of Contents; however, the landing page for each section includes descriptive titles for each idea.

Consider also the workload your assessment plan creates - for you and for learners. A couple of reminders: Factor in time required for students to complete 1) online posting and replying in discussion forums as part of course reading and writing; and 2) peer responding to drafts of documents, multimedia presentations, or another form of out-of-class work that goes beyond ordinary class preparation in your course.  

Two questions for reflection at this planning stage: Is the workload you are planning for yourself and your students reasonable? Will students have sufficient experience with assessments and feedback - and opportunities to talk with you as a teacher - well before the deadline for mid-semester grade reports and/or deadlines to drop the course?

An “Assessment Alignment and Planning” google document worksheet supports the feasibility check by taking your Course Schedule planning one step further by adding a column to record who’s doing what work at each stage of an assessment: Who’s providing feedback, and grades/marks with comments? Where are activities and assessments (un)helpfully overlapping? How and when can students miss an activity or make up an assessment?

Rice University’s “Course Workload Estimator” website allows you to upload data regarding course factors including reading, writing, and assessments, as well as some course logistics.  

Feasibility checks will prepare you for using the “Transparency Framework” google document to develop assignment descriptions to share with students, and to highlight where and how you might need to plan for preparing your students as they work to complete assignments and assessments.

In a “Mistakes Happen” YouTube video, Professor Maria Gini notes how and why she embedded more practice time into class sessions, and changed aspects of inclass exams. Three additional resources offer specific strategies about preparing students for exams, and exams for moving learners forward in their demonstrations of learning: 

• “Prepare students for assessments” - this webpage builds on this key piece of advice: “Rather than telling students what will be “on” an assessment, tell them what they should be able to “do” in the assessment.” 
• “Reduce student anxiety” - a webpage with suggestions for modifying the stress impacts students experience in preparing for and completing high-stakes assessments.
• The recorded webinar “Honouring Neurodiversity: Planning & Designing for Effective Accessible Learning” explores ways of building courses, activities, and assessments/ assignments that support neurodiverse students' learning in a range of courses and learning spaces, which all reflect human neurodiversity. (If you do not have a University of Minnesota email account, you may request a guest account for access.)

• Linda Nilson’s excellent “Grading Summative Assessments” pdf provides a precise overview of the many factors involved in grading, and doesn’t skimp on describing ways to enact the principles. 
• Interested in learning about the whys and hows of “Teaching More by Grading Less (Or Differently)”? Check the open access article by Jeffery Schinske and Kimberly Tanner.
• For shorter reviews of key practices, consider the google document “Characteristics of a Good Grading  & Systems” and/or the “Effective Grading Strategies” blogpost.
• “Designing and Using Rubrics” provides a blogpost walkthrough of why and how to use rubrics, ways to design rubrics, and what might be downsides, and the complementary word document template for a Single Point Rubric.  

• To learn more about ungrading, which launched moves away from traditional grading practices to grading for growth learning-centered marking and grading practices, you might peruse the following resources:
  • The “Grading for Growth” website, authored by David Clark and Robert Talbert, with these two threads as a starting point:
    • David Clark on “Grading for Equity with Grading for Growth” - with part 1 blogpost focusing on accuracy and motivation, and part 2 blogpost taking on building bias-resistant summative assessment practices.
    • Robert Talbert showcases the development of his alternative grading practice in three posts: 
      • The “Giving Marks that Indicate Progress” blogpost is an introduction to feedback practices based on marks that move learning forward rather than grading that assesses an arrival point.
      • The August 2024 blogpost reports on “How I Am Updating My Alternative Grading Approach for Fall” using a how it began, how it’s going, and what’s next organizational structure.
      • Most helpful if you’re starting out with alternative grading, “20 Small Starts for Alternative Grading” a blogpost that walks the talk of its title.  
• Spend a bit of time annotating your own copies of three ungrading specific documents:
  • A conversation with Cristina Ortize on “Ungrading: A Richer Context for Assessment and Feedback” as a blogpost, and as a informal zoom conversation with Assessment Deep Dive participants.
  • Looking for ideas closer to your home field or discipline? The “Ungrading Across the Disciplines: Reflections of a Professional Learning Community” pdf is that resource. 
  • Susan Blum, editor of the Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning anthology, and Bonni Stachowiak talk in a Teaching in Higher Education podcast about coming to an ungrading practice.

These three sources address “How do we undermine cheating with small changes to our teaching practices?” as a central query:

• Writing about “Cheating Lessons” for The Chronicle of Higher Education, James Lang suggests small modifications to classroom practices that can support learners rather than focus on cheaters. Part 1 webpage. Part 2 webpage (requires login). 
• “Does alternative grading make cheating more likely?” is a common qualm for teachers considering small- and large-scale implementation of alternative grading practices. Robert Talbert reports on related research in a late 2023 blogpost.
• A pair of resources provide “big picture” analysis of the shift from pedagogies of suspicion toward pedagogies of aligned course assessments and class activities: 
  • University of Michigan at Dearborn university administrators and faculty respond to the query “Can we beat cheating through better teaching?” in a short blogpost.
  • the Inside Higher Education article “Best Way to Stop Cheating in Online Courses? ‘Teach Better’” reports on faculty beliefs about cheating and on effective faculty practices based on pedagogical research related to assessment and engagement.

• CEI’s “Generative AI Teaching & Learning Resources” google document is updated regularly, with earlier editions archived.  For links to assessment, review the sections on Plagiarism Detection (and their unreliability as well as biases), Course Policies (wording and setting up examples), and Working with Learners (undergraduate, graduate, and professional students). 
• The University of Minnesota “Academic Integrity Resources for Instructors” website embeds attention to Generative AI across its three sections.