1. Director of Assessment
IPFW Assessment Academy
Programmatic Assessment Workshop Series - Signature Assignments
Workshop 2
D. Kent Johnson, PhD
Director of Assessment

2. Signature assignment revisited
An assignment that “…meets a set of broad specifications for a particular area…” of a core curriculum.
Pat Hutchings, Natasha A. Jankowski & Kathryn E. Schultz (2016) Designing
Effective Classroom Assignments: Intellectual Work Worth Sharing, Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 48:1, 6-15, DOI: /

3. Assignment Peer Review (NILOA Charrette Process)
Activity 1
Pat Hutchings, Natasha A. Jankowski & Kathryn E. Schultz (2016)
The assignment author (or authors) introduce assignment to group (5 minutes)

4. Introduce Assignment to Group – Overview of Assignment
What student learning outcome(s) did you target in your assignment
What level of student learning do you expect students to demonstrate through their completion of the assignment (e.g. describe, categorize, apply, create)
What is the “relationship” between the assignment and either course activities leading to the completion or prior learning in other curricular or co-curricular experiences for programmatic assessment)
How will you evaluate learning relative to expectations (rubric, trait analysis, etc.)
How will you use findings to make changes in the course or program (see 3 and 4 above)

5. Assignment Peer Review (NILOA Charrette Process)
Activity 2
Pat Hutchings, Natasha A. Jankowski & Kathryn E. Schultz (2016)
Group comments on assignment asking questions and making suggestions for improvement
(15 to 20 minutes)
In making comments, emphasize elements of consequential assessment – see next slide

6. Consequential Assessment
Kuh, Ikenberry, Jankowski, Cain, Ewell, Hutchings, and Kinzie Using Evidence of Student Learning to Improve Higher Education. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Is evidence compelling and actionable?
Is the assignment organized and designed in a way that the assessment can identify potential for programmatic improvement and help students understand the level of their learning in relationship to expectations?
To what extent can the assignment be consistently embedded in the ongoing work of teaching and learning in the academic program?

7. Assignment Peer Review (NILOA Charrette Process)
Activity 3
Pat Hutchings, Natasha A. Jankowski & Kathryn E. Schultz (2016)
Prepare written feedback for the assignment author(s)

8. Assignment Peer Review (NILOA Charrette Process)
Activity 3 – Feedback Form
Pat Hutchings, Natasha A. Jankowski & Kathryn E. Schultz (2016)
Object of Review
Comments
Assignment design – compelling and actionable evidence
Desired impact
Sustainability of design