FAQ & Definitions

Assessment is the systematic process for understanding and improving student learning. It consists of gathering information about student learning, which may be qualitative or quantitative in nature, and using it for some purpose, such as providing feedback to students, assigning grades, and making curricular improvements. Assessment is the scholarly aspect of teaching.

Assessment:

• carries practical importance. It highlights our unique strengths and uncovers ways to improve. Findings inform curriculum design and pedagogical approaches and allows us to articulate the value of our programs.
• transcends grades. It can address areas such as student engagement, growth in self-efficacy, and student experiences, and can uncover unintended outcomes, both positive and negative.
• promotes forward-thinking and reflection. We can gauge learning as we go, adjusting the curriculum as needed. At the end of a course, reflecting on assessment findings can lead us in new directions.
• engenders intentionality. Learning outcomes and their alignment with assessment methods make the learning and assessment process transparent for students and provide a solid foundation for curriculum development at both the course and program levels.
• extends responsibility for learning to students themselves. When students understand learning outcomes and are included in the assessment process, they take more ownership of their learning.

Learning outcomes are specific, measurable statements that define what students will know or be able to do by the end of a course or program. Unlike broader learning objectives or goals, which are general statements of intent, learning outcomes focus on observable achievements.

Assessment often takes a much broader approach to student learning than grading does. Grades reflect how students did in a single course or on a particular project or exam. Assessment can involve looking at what students do across a set of courses or experiences—whether they have been able to make connections across courses,what they know and are able to do after completing some component of their degree requirements, and whether individual courses have been transformed into a coherent whole.

Additionally, grades by themselves do not explain in detail what students have learned. They can reflect criteria not directly related to student learning, such as class participation and getting papers in by the due dates, as well as how a student’s performance compares to that of classmates. Graded course assignments can be, in part, teaching tools used to enhance student growth as much as to measure it. Furthermore, many student learning assessment tools differ from those used to determine grades; these include baseline measures given to students beginning a course or a program of study and surveys of current and recent graduates.

Grades can, however, be a key source of data for assessment of student learning. This is particularly true when an assignment is clearly linked to course or program objectives and the grading of that assignment uses criteria carefully aligned with those objectives. See our page on assessing learning in classes for more information on grading.

Formative assessment is typically low-stakes and diagnostic, with a focus on development and ongoing improvement. In a course context, it can be used at various points during the term to provide feedback on student learning, motivate students, diagnose strengths and weaknesses, and encourage self-reflection. By identifying what students are learning and where they face challenges throughout a course, instructors can adjust to enhance strengths and address weaknesses. Formative assessment is particularly valuable for new or revised courses, helping to ensure that implementation and impact align with course learning outcomes. Classroom assessment techniques are a common example.

Summative assessment is typically high-stakes and focuses on accountability, performance, and impact, gauging whether outcomes have been achieved at the end of a term or activity. In a course context, it is used to grade students, predict future success, or measure overall proficiency or achievement or learning outcomes. In a program context, summative assessment demonstrates overall program performance, serves as a baseline for internal tracking, or provides a benchmark for external comparison with other programs. 

Assessment measures are the tools used to capture student learning and can be categorized as either embedded (part of course activities) or add-on (external to the course). There are two main types of assessments:

• Direct measures involve direct observation of student learning, allowing students to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, or thought processes in relation to specific learning outcomes. Examples exams and performance-based assessments such as senior theses or in-class presentations.
• Indirect measures capture students' self-perceptions of their own learning or reflections on their experiences. These tools provide insight into learning outcomes through surveys, focus groups, and alumni feedback.

Examples of direct measures include

• Performance on exam questions tied to learning objectives
• Rubric-based scoring of student papers
• Comparisons of student work over time (e.g., early vs. later assignments)
• Analysis of senior projects or thesis papers

Examples of indirect measures include

• Student surveys and feedback forms
• Alumni surveys reflecting on their educational experiences
• Faculty surveys on student readiness for advanced coursework
• Employer feedback on the skills and attitudes of graduates

Both direct and indirect measures provide complementary insights into student learning, helping instructors and administrators understand not only what students are learning, but also how they perceive and reflect on their learning experiences

When designing assessments, instructors should aim to ensure both validity and reliability.

A valid assessment measures whether students have achieved the stated learning outcomes—and not something else. Sometimes, assessments may seem to gauge the right skills but actually gauge something less relevant. For example, multiple-choice tests can sometimes assess a student's test-taking ability rather than their grasp of the course material. Similarly, a written assignment intended to evaluate critical thinking may end up measuring writing skills instead, and a presentation designed to assess understanding of concepts may inadvertently test public speaking ability.

A reliable assessment consistently produces the same results each time it is used. For instance, a multiple-choice or true-false exam with a clear answer key will yield consistent scoring, regardless of who grades it. In contrast, more open-ended assignments, where multiple responses are possible or "correct" answers are not the goal, rely on a shared set of criteria to ensure consistent assessment.

Examples of reliability:

• A Philosophy professor and three TAs are grading the same set of exams. Using a shared rubric helps ensure inter-rater reliability and consistency.
• A Biology professor asks student teams to present their projects throughout the quarter. To maintain consistency, the professor uses the same set of criteria to assess all presentations.

See the AAC&U VALUE Rubrics for examples of learning outcomes rubrics.