Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 2 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 100% |
Arguments: | 2 |
Debates: | 0 |
As you have clearly indicated, in your own argument FOR programmatic assessment as an essential part of student learning, there are obvious flaws with this point of view.
1) You argue that, if done poorly, program-level assessment (has)…low validity, low reliability, is time-consuming, frustrating to teachers, frustrating to students, and is costly. You reference this statement from an article in 2000 by Knight PT1. In your own point supporting programmatic assessment, you have argued against it. We simply agree with your point that programmatic assessment is not essential for student learning for the reasons you have sited in your own agreement paper.
2) You indicate that “if done properly” program level assessment can provide benefits to the student. Again, you cite the same 2000 article by Knight1 and a 2004 article by Allen, MJ2. These references are not even from this decade! Additionally, there is no evidence for the statements you make in your first paragraph. We argue that program level assessments are, by nature, done poorly because of the very reasons you state; specifically, low validity and reliability, time cost, frustration, financial impediments and so forth.
3) Your next four points have nothing to do with the argument you are attempting to promote. You simply describe attempts at program level assessment4. This argument is indeed a non sequitur.
4) You conclude with one example from UMUC where a program level assessment is purported to be effective.5 One example does not make an argument for the effectiveness of anything.5
Based on your own flawed attempts at arguing for the effectiveness of programmatic assessment, it is clear that the strength of an argument against programmatic assessment is much more reasonable.
References:
1. Knight PT. The Value of a Programme-wide Approach to Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2000;25(3):237-251. doi:10.1080/713611434.
2. Allen, Mary J. Assessing academic programs in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company; 2004.
3. Praslova L. Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in Higher Education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 2010;22(3):215-225. doi:10.1007/s11092-010-9098-7
4. Hernández R. Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education. 2012;64(4):489-502. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9506-7
5. Khan, R., Khalsa, D.K., Klose, K., & Cooksey, Y.Z. (2012). Assessing graduate student learning in four competencies: use of a common assignment and a combined rubric. Research & Practice in Assessment, 7 (winter), 29-41.
As you have clearly indicated, in your own argument FOR programmatic assessment as an essential part of student learning, there are obvious flaws with this point of view.
1) You argue that, if done poorly, program-level assessment (has)…low validity, low reliability, is time-consuming, frustrating to teachers, frustrating to students, and is costly. You reference this statement from an article in 2000 by Knight PT1. In your own point supporting programmatic assessment, you have argued against it. We simply agree with your point that programmatic assessment is not essential for student learning for the reasons you have sited in your own agreement paper.
2) You indicate that “if done properly” program level assessment can provide benefits to the student. Again, you cite the same 2000 article by Knight1 and a 2004 article by Allen, MJ2. These references are not even from this decade! Additionally, there is no evidence for the statements you make in your first paragraph. We argue that program level assessments are, by nature, done poorly because of the very reasons you state; specifically, low validity and reliability, time cost, frustration, financial impediments and so forth.
3) Your next four points have nothing to do with the argument you are attempting to promote. You simply describe attempts at program level assessment4. This argument is indeed a non sequitur.
4) You conclude with one example from UMUC where a program level assessment is purported to be effective.5 One example does not make an argument for the effectiveness of anything.5
Based on your own flawed attempts at arguing for the effectiveness of programmatic assessment, it is clear that the strength of an argument against programmatic assessment is much more reasonable.
References:
1. Knight PT. The Value of a Programme-wide Approach to Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2000;25(3):237-251. doi:10.1080/713611434.
2. Allen, Mary J. Assessing academic programs in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company; 2004.
3. Praslova L. Adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four-level model of training criteria to assessment of learning outcomes and program evaluation in Higher Education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability. 2010;22(3):215-225. doi:10.1007/s11092-010-9098-7
4. Hernández R. Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education. 2012;64(4):489-502. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9506-7
5. Khan, R., Khalsa, D.K., Klose, K., & Cooksey, Y.Z. (2012). Assessing graduate student learning in four competencies: use of a common assignment and a combined rubric. Research & Practice in Assessment, 7 (winter), 29-41.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |