Martin, "Outcomes Assessment," Ch. 4 in Rose and Weiser, _The WPA as Researcher_

Summary: Martin tracks the development of an outcomes-assessment program at her school. She argues that "outcomes assessment not only can help us to see what we are doing well and what needs attention, it can also help to increase the quantity and quality of faculty conversation about teaching and can provide opportunities for interested graduate students to participate in the design and execution of research with real-world significance" (41). Her group engaged the value of the FYC requirement, the value of the individual outcomes, and whether students were meeting them. She describes the evolution of the assessment program, from a relatively quick read of student portfolios with minimal norming or discussion. This resulted in highly divergent readings and faculty dissatisfaction. She then modified the program to include extensive norming and discussion and revised the assessment tools, resulting in better consensus and more faculty confidence in the process. She notes that the conversations were extremely productive and led the group to examine far more than just the essays at hand, but also the goals of the courses, the practices of the teachers, the relative value they placed on different writing issues, etc.

Response: This was an excellent and honest piece that not only provided a model of what (and what not) to do, but raised the point that good outcomes assessment, when undertaken not for compliance to some outside agency, but developed within a program, can spur really excellent conversations. I thought this piece was quite useful. It reminded me quite a bit of my own college's program, which I was strongly involved in starting and evolving. I've written about it here and here. (For some reason they yanked my byline in the second link, but the piece was originally published in Community College Week.)

Uses: This could be used to humanize the assessment effort and show that it can have benefits at the local class- and program-level if approached as a way to encourage dialogue and continually improve courses. It also has applicability to the professionalization of part-time instructors and developing cohesion in a department.