Article 1: A mixed-methods investigation of the relationship between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students in their information search process
This article reports results of a study of the nature of the associations between critical thinking and library anxiety among undergraduate students. A standardized survey was administered to 137 students to acquire quantitative data for analysis. The same students were asked to write an essay about their library use experiences, which formed the basis for a qualitative analysis. These two methods of analysis revealed connections in the data that helped investigators identify qualitative support for the quantitative results. By consolidating the two investigative methods, an interactive model emerged which contrasts critical thinking skills with library anxiety. This model shows a direct link between critical thinking skills and library anxiety. Students with strong critical thinking skills overcame library anxiety during their library use experiences; whereas students possessing weak critical thinking skills experienced more anxiety and had more trouble overcoming it.
Of significance, was the finding that three key critical thinking dimensions (see Facione) were more frequently observed than others, namely self-confidence, systematicity, and inquisitiveness. These dimensions helped students build on their information literacy skills and overcome anxiety while in the midst of their experience. Possessing these critical thinking dimensions caused students, who weren’t sure how to begin, to develop strategies for their searches and to overcome failures. As information was found, confidence and determination increased, leading to successful outcomes. Students who did not exhibit these dimensions experienced failure. This investigation confirms that librarianship must include “assisting students in the process of learning and using information they have located” (see Kuhltau). Kwon suggests three key objectives that will make library literacy instruction more effective. Instruction librarians should lead students to feelings of confidence about their own cognitive abilities, create a learning environment that encourages intellectual curiosity and persistence, and encourage students to employ focused and systematic approaches when solving research problems.
Article Citation: Kwon, Nahyun. “A Mixed-Methods Investigation of the Relationship between Critical Thinking and Library Anxiety among Undergraduate Students in their Information Search Process.” College and Research Libraries 69.2 (March 2004): 117-31.
Other works cited: Facione, Peter A., et al. “The Disposition toward Critical Thinking: Its Character, Measurement, and Relationship to Critical Thinking Skill.” Informal Logic 20.1 (2000): 22Kuhltau, Carol C. Seeking Meaning: A Process Approach to Library and Information Services, 2nd ed. (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004).
Friday, February 19, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Article 2: Beyond active learning: a constructivist approach to learning
This article discusses the basic elements of constructivist learning and more deeply reveals specific learning activities that can be implemented in the classroom. The authors suggest four guiding principles that support this learning theory, learners construct their own meaning, new knowledge builds on a foundation, social interaction enhances learning, and learning comes from encountering real-life activities. The authors employ an interesting simile by addressing the adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Instructors are equated with facilitators and follow the steps of leading the learner along the path of learning to content (water) that has been prepared. The facilitator must keep the path smooth, void of briers and impediments, until ultimately the learner has arrived at and tasted deeply the content (or new knowledge). A number of learning activities are included in an appendix of the article. These are related to specific areas of library instruction.
Two key truths about constructivist theory are emphasized in this article, which, while presented, are not as obvious in the other readings. These truths address and refute two complaints about constructivist theory. Opponents suggest that constructivist theory is too open and without form, allowing learners to meander without ever actually learning and without being required to demonstrate their learning. The second complaint is that the theory is ineffective for certain learners, who may not have a solid foundation of basic knowledge upon which to build. The first truth as stated in the article is that constructivist learning “moves from experience to learning, and not the other way around.” In other words, some experience is required, or learning cannot happen. Opponents are wrong to assume that constructivists believe learning can happen without some foundation of knowledge. The constructivist endeavors to lead the learner to and through experiences to enable learning, and uses a scaffold of learning steps to build the foundation and more. The second truth is that “without structure there would be no guarantee of specific skill and concept learning.” The acknowledgement that structure is required and that a foundation of knowledge is necessary, goes a long way in eliminating the arguments purporting the ineffectiveness of constructivist learning theory.
Article Citation: Cooperstein, Susan E. and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger. “Beyond Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning.” Reference Services Review 32 (2004): 141-8.
This article discusses the basic elements of constructivist learning and more deeply reveals specific learning activities that can be implemented in the classroom. The authors suggest four guiding principles that support this learning theory, learners construct their own meaning, new knowledge builds on a foundation, social interaction enhances learning, and learning comes from encountering real-life activities. The authors employ an interesting simile by addressing the adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Instructors are equated with facilitators and follow the steps of leading the learner along the path of learning to content (water) that has been prepared. The facilitator must keep the path smooth, void of briers and impediments, until ultimately the learner has arrived at and tasted deeply the content (or new knowledge). A number of learning activities are included in an appendix of the article. These are related to specific areas of library instruction.
Two key truths about constructivist theory are emphasized in this article, which, while presented, are not as obvious in the other readings. These truths address and refute two complaints about constructivist theory. Opponents suggest that constructivist theory is too open and without form, allowing learners to meander without ever actually learning and without being required to demonstrate their learning. The second complaint is that the theory is ineffective for certain learners, who may not have a solid foundation of basic knowledge upon which to build. The first truth as stated in the article is that constructivist learning “moves from experience to learning, and not the other way around.” In other words, some experience is required, or learning cannot happen. Opponents are wrong to assume that constructivists believe learning can happen without some foundation of knowledge. The constructivist endeavors to lead the learner to and through experiences to enable learning, and uses a scaffold of learning steps to build the foundation and more. The second truth is that “without structure there would be no guarantee of specific skill and concept learning.” The acknowledgement that structure is required and that a foundation of knowledge is necessary, goes a long way in eliminating the arguments purporting the ineffectiveness of constructivist learning theory.
Article Citation: Cooperstein, Susan E. and Elizabeth Kocevar-Weidinger. “Beyond Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning.” Reference Services Review 32 (2004): 141-8.
Article 1: Elicit, engage, experience, explore: discovery learning in library instruction
This article discusses a teaching strategy called Discovery Learning. This strategy is intended to heighten student involvement in the learning process and also helps the student recognize the relevance of the particular instruction. Five basic learning architectures are presented under the headings of Case-based learning, Incidental learning, Learning by exploring, Learning by reflection, and Simulation-based learning. Several specific examples of classroom exercises representing each of these architectures are outlined. The authors use Aristotle’s adage, “What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing”, to presuppose the need for discovery learning. Later, they offer solutions to some anticipated barriers to discovery learning and encourage librarians/instructors to gradually implement this strategy into existing library instruction.
Discovery learning is suggested as a synonym for active learning and likewise, each can be a synonym for constructivist learning. The authors’ description of constructivist learning theory enhances the information presented by Svinicki. Several key attributes of this learning theory are given as: (1) using Problem-solving and exploration, (2) learner interest-based control of sequence and frequency, and (3) the integration of new knowledge with the existing base. In fact, it follows that any pedagogy must contain some aspect of these attributes to be considered constructivist. The key is engagement of the learner to the point of immersion into the process. The learner is made to be in control of learning. The basic precept is that people learn better and retain the knowledge longer when intimately engaged in the learning process. All of the specific strategies or exercises within the architectures discussed in the article encompass these attributes in at least some degree. It is easy to understand how they can be implemented and to recognize their positive impact in achieving the objectives of the constructivist learning theory. It is also impressive how simple activities support powerful learning outcomes by engaging the learners in the process and maintaining their attention, sometimes for what may be short spans of time.
Article Citation: Bicknell-Holmes, Tracy and Paul Seth Hoffman. “Elicit, engage, experience, explore: discovery learning in library instruction.” Reference Services Review 28 (2000): 313-22.
Additional Work Cited: Svinicki, Marilla. Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom. (Anker, 2004). Chapter 2.
This article discusses a teaching strategy called Discovery Learning. This strategy is intended to heighten student involvement in the learning process and also helps the student recognize the relevance of the particular instruction. Five basic learning architectures are presented under the headings of Case-based learning, Incidental learning, Learning by exploring, Learning by reflection, and Simulation-based learning. Several specific examples of classroom exercises representing each of these architectures are outlined. The authors use Aristotle’s adage, “What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing”, to presuppose the need for discovery learning. Later, they offer solutions to some anticipated barriers to discovery learning and encourage librarians/instructors to gradually implement this strategy into existing library instruction.
Discovery learning is suggested as a synonym for active learning and likewise, each can be a synonym for constructivist learning. The authors’ description of constructivist learning theory enhances the information presented by Svinicki. Several key attributes of this learning theory are given as: (1) using Problem-solving and exploration, (2) learner interest-based control of sequence and frequency, and (3) the integration of new knowledge with the existing base. In fact, it follows that any pedagogy must contain some aspect of these attributes to be considered constructivist. The key is engagement of the learner to the point of immersion into the process. The learner is made to be in control of learning. The basic precept is that people learn better and retain the knowledge longer when intimately engaged in the learning process. All of the specific strategies or exercises within the architectures discussed in the article encompass these attributes in at least some degree. It is easy to understand how they can be implemented and to recognize their positive impact in achieving the objectives of the constructivist learning theory. It is also impressive how simple activities support powerful learning outcomes by engaging the learners in the process and maintaining their attention, sometimes for what may be short spans of time.
Article Citation: Bicknell-Holmes, Tracy and Paul Seth Hoffman. “Elicit, engage, experience, explore: discovery learning in library instruction.” Reference Services Review 28 (2000): 313-22.
Additional Work Cited: Svinicki, Marilla. Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom. (Anker, 2004). Chapter 2.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Archival Theory & Diplomatics
Archival science encompasses the theory, methods, practice and analysis of the safe storage, cataloging and accession of materials. Its history has been primarily concerned with preservation and safe handling of documents as well as measuring and reporting the provenance of documents to assure their reliability and authenticity. With the advent of digital documents the science has taken on an expansion of each of its process parts. Duranti[i] and Gilliland-Swetland[ii] refer to an archival paradigm. Interestingly, the former suggests that the science has experienced a paradigm shift, where as the latter presents a strong case that the paradigm remains intact and has only taken on new opportunities. In this paper a few of their key thoughts will be discussed leading to a conclusion that semantics aside, the science has undergone significant evolution leading to the ultimate adoption of principles from multiple disciplines of information science to emerge as an all-encompassing system to support the proper archiving of documents, electronic and otherwise.
In Duranti’s description of archival science as a system, she proposes that all the system parts must function together (theory, methodology, practice, and scholarship) to achieve a clear objective. When one part of the system is changed, then the whole system can be considered changed. Galliland-Swetland identifies the newest iteration of the science’s functional requirements to be an amalgamation of process requirements from various disciplines (librarians, archivists, curators, preservationists, technical information specialists, and information systems and museum professionals) encouraging each community to be conversant with the practices and principles of each of the other communities. In the articles, each author in her own way is supporting the concept that archival science is dealing with more than mere information. It is a discipline and a profession that deals with knowledge. It is further posited that archivists should be engaged at the original development of knowledge and that engagement should carry on right through the long-range preservation of knowledge for future users. Archival science is preserving the story of knowledge development in order to save the context. Awareness and understanding of that context help to fully appreciate the knowledge and how it was created, and perhaps even its future uses. With that in mind, the sooner the archivist is brought into the process of knowledge creation and information handling, the better the preservation of that knowledge, since its ultimate storage and uses can be anticipated from the start.
The articles cite a number of studies and projects which have tackled the issues of collaboration between disciplines, specifically in confronting new challenges in dealing with electronic documents and their preservation. Several of those projects, such as the Preservation of the Integrity of Electronic Records research project at the University of British Columbia (UBC Project) and its follow-on project InterPARES (International Research on Permanent Authentic Records in Electronic Systems), set out to address the archivists’ challenges with records created or stored in electronic systems. These and other international committees and project teams, formulated in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, studied specific digital document problems and made recommendations on how the archival science community should deal with and solve these new challenges. Duranti was a part of the two projects specifically mentioned here and edited the final reports and recommendations. The InterPARES project[iii] is important for many reasons, not the least being its decidedly international flavor and thus the encouragement of archivists around the world to adopt strategies and methodologies that will best preserve the world’s knowledge and the future knowledge that will be developed in new formats and environments. Galliland-Swetland reviews the experiences and contributions of these projects and many other contributors from the archival community. Their findings and recommendations for preserving the documentary heritage of records, regardless of their format, are presented and analyzed.
Further, it is suggested that projects undertaking the development of future electronic systems should acquire and maintain a vision of this integration of multiple disciplinary theories and methodologies. It is deemed important for the future of archival science to become a part of such development efforts. For example, on pages 24 and 25 of Galliland-Swetland’s report, the author poses several questions about metadata after stating the need for identifying the “tensions between the rich and complex metadata sets that individual communities have developed”. With more and more non-specialists using digital archives the need for simpler metadata sets seems apparent. An example or two of real case implementations as a response to this need are described by the author. The first cited case is the use of a new archival descriptive standard in the United States called Encoded Archival Description (EAD), which can be a more flexible metadata infrastructure, and which is capable of supporting information retrieval and display without compromising any archival objectives. The second example given is SPIRT, a recordkeeping metadata standards project conducted in Australia. SPIRT has had success in integrating standardized metadata schemes into record keeping systems and retaining support of archival uses as well.
Based on the evidence of such cases and the findings of the reports in general, the authors suggest that archival science must become more collaborative now and in the future than it has been in the past in order to more fully inculcate the theories and practices of archival science into the process of knowledge creation and long-range handling of knowledge documents and document storage. Some questions to consider for class discussion are:
1) Why hasn’t there been more collaboration in the past? What is it about electronic documents or the current environment that suddenly caused awareness of this need, or at least willingness to address it?
2) How best can archivists approach this challenge and garner the invitation to be involved in the knowledge creation process at the outset, instead of when it may be too late? How can a more holistic view be instilled in all knowledge and information workers to enable adoption of the collaboration principles espoused by the Galiland-Swetland and Duranti articles and reports?
3) Who will be best positioned to bring the various disciplines together, especially those outside the realm of information science (i.e. computer science)? Will it be archival scientists, computer scientists, or some other group?
Taken together, these articles provide an outline of a number of steps that, to some extent at least, have already been implemented and that should be widely adopted in order to continue the evolving process of establishing guidelines and rules for the work of archivists when dealing with all types of documents, including the newest formats and those yet to be developed.
The goals of the projects and committees cited in the articles include a refinement of the archival rules and models so as to eliminate duplication and to bring into the field many good practices, theories and models from other disciplines that strengthen the archival process. The system of archival science needs the adoption of outside models and theories to enrich and modernize its own processes. The other disciplines are also enhanced when their theories and methodologies adopt a keen awareness of the principles of archival science. In this way, the archival principles of reliability, authenticity, provenance and transparency are maintained in a changing environment that continually introduces new knowledge creation technologies and also produces new document formats.
Notes:
[i] Duranti, Luciana (2001). "The Impact of Digital Technology on Archival Science" in Archival Science 1(1), pp. 39-55.
[ii] Gilliland-Swetland, Anne J. (Feb. 2000). “Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities: The Value of the Archival Perspective in the Digital Environment”. Council on Library & Information Resources, Washington D.C. http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub89/pub89.pdf
[iii] The InterPARES Project (2001). The Long-term Preservation of Authentic Electronic Records: Findings of the InterPARES Project. http://www.interpares.org/book/index.cfm
Friday, January 15, 2010
9 Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning
Developed by Alexander W. Astin; Trudy W. Banta; K. Patricia Cross; Elaine El-Khawas; Peter T. Ewell; Pat Hutchings; Theodore J. Marchese; Kay M. McClenney; Marcia Mentkowski; Margaret A. Miller; E. Thomas Moran; Barbara D. Wright
This document was developed under the auspices of the AAHE Assessment Forum with support from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education with additional support for publication and dissemination from the Exxon Education Foundation. Copies may be made without restriction.
1. The assessment of student learning begins with educational values. Assessment is not an end in itself but a vehicle for educational improvement. Its effective practice, then, begins with and enacts a vision of the kinds of learning we most value for students and strive to help them achieve. Educational values should drive not only what we choose to assess but also how we do so. Where questions about educational mission and values are skipped over, assessment threatens to be an exercise in measuring what's easy, rather than a process of improving what we really care about.
2. Assessment is most effective when it reflects an understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time. Learning is a complex process. It entails not only what students know but what they can do with what they know; it involves not only knowledge and abilities but values, attitudes, and habits of mind that affect both academic success and performance beyond the classroom. Assessment should reflect these understandings by employing a diverse array of methods, including those that call for actual performance, using them over time so as to reveal change, growth, and increasing degrees of integration. Such an approach aims for a more complete and accurate picture of learning, and therefore firmer bases for improving our students' educational experience.
3. Assessment works best when the programs it seeks to improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes. Assessment is a goal-oriented process. It entails comparing educational performance with educational purposes and expectations -- those derived from the institution's mission, from faculty intentions in program and course design, and from knowledge of students' own goals. Where program purposes lack specificity or agreement, assessment as a process pushes a campus toward clarity about where to aim and what standards to apply; assessment also prompts attention to where and how program goals will be taught and learned. Clear, shared, implementable goals are the cornerstone for assessment that is focused and useful.
4. Assessment requires attention to outcomes but also and equally to the experiences that lead to those outcomes. Information about outcomes is of high importance; where students "end up" matters greatly. But to improve outcomes, we need to know about student experience along the way -- about the curricula, teaching, and kind of student effort that lead to particular outcomes. Assessment can help us understand which students learn best under what conditions; with such knowledge comes the capacity to improve the whole of their learning.
5. Assessment works best when it is ongoing not episodic. Assessment is a process whose power is cumulative. Though isolated, "one-shot" assessment can be better than none, improvement is best fostered when assessment entails a linked series of activities undertaken over time. This may mean tracking the process of individual students, or of cohorts of students; it may mean collecting the same examples of student performance or using the same instrument semester after semester. The point is to monitor progress toward intended goals in a spirit of continuous improvement. Along the way, the assessment process itself should be evaluated and refined in light of emerging insights.
6. Assessment fosters wider improvement when representatives from across the educational community are involved. Student learning is a campus-wide responsibility, and assessment is a way of enacting that responsibility. Thus, while assessment efforts may start small, the aim over time is to involve people from across the educational community. Faculty play an especially important role, but assessment's questions can't be fully addressed without participation by student-affairs educators, librarians, administrators, and students. Assessment may also involve individuals from beyond the campus (alumni/ae, trustees, employers) whose experience can enrich the sense of appropriate aims and standards for learning. Thus understood, assessment is not a task for small groups of experts but a collaborative activity; its aim is wider, better-informed attention to student learning by all parties with a stake in its improvement.
7. Assessment makes a difference when it begins with issues of use and illuminates questions that people really care about. Assessment recognizes the value of information in the process of improvement. But to be useful, information must be connected to issues or questions that people really care about. This implies assessment approaches that produce evidence that relevant parties will find credible, suggestive, and applicable to decisions that need to be made. It means thinking in advance about how the information will be used, and by whom. The point of assessment is not to gather data and return "results"; it is a process that starts with the questions of decision-makers, that involves them in the gathering and interpreting of data, and that informs and helps guide continuous improvement.
8. Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part of a larger set of conditions that promote change. Assessment alone changes little. Its greatest contribution comes on campuses where the quality of teaching and learning is visibly valued and worked at. On such campuses, the push to improve educational performance is a visible and primary goal of leadership; improving the quality of undergraduate education is central to the institution's planning, budgeting, and personnel decisions. On such campuses, information about learning outcomes is seen as an integral part of decision making, and avidly sought.
9. Through assessment, educators meet responsibilities to students and to the public. There is a compelling public stake in education. As educators, we have a responsibility to the publics that support or depend on us to provide information about the ways in which our students meet goals and expectations. But that responsibility goes beyond the reporting of such information; our deeper obligation -- to ourselves, our students, and society -- is to improve. Those to whom educators are accountable have a corresponding obligation to support such attempts at improvement.
To request more information about the Assessment Forum, contact:
One Dupont Circle, Suite 360 Washington DC 20036-1143 Phone 202/293-6440 Fax 202/293-0073 info@aahe.org © 2003 American Association for Higher Education
This document was developed under the auspices of the AAHE Assessment Forum with support from the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education with additional support for publication and dissemination from the Exxon Education Foundation. Copies may be made without restriction.
1. The assessment of student learning begins with educational values. Assessment is not an end in itself but a vehicle for educational improvement. Its effective practice, then, begins with and enacts a vision of the kinds of learning we most value for students and strive to help them achieve. Educational values should drive not only what we choose to assess but also how we do so. Where questions about educational mission and values are skipped over, assessment threatens to be an exercise in measuring what's easy, rather than a process of improving what we really care about.
2. Assessment is most effective when it reflects an understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time. Learning is a complex process. It entails not only what students know but what they can do with what they know; it involves not only knowledge and abilities but values, attitudes, and habits of mind that affect both academic success and performance beyond the classroom. Assessment should reflect these understandings by employing a diverse array of methods, including those that call for actual performance, using them over time so as to reveal change, growth, and increasing degrees of integration. Such an approach aims for a more complete and accurate picture of learning, and therefore firmer bases for improving our students' educational experience.
3. Assessment works best when the programs it seeks to improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes. Assessment is a goal-oriented process. It entails comparing educational performance with educational purposes and expectations -- those derived from the institution's mission, from faculty intentions in program and course design, and from knowledge of students' own goals. Where program purposes lack specificity or agreement, assessment as a process pushes a campus toward clarity about where to aim and what standards to apply; assessment also prompts attention to where and how program goals will be taught and learned. Clear, shared, implementable goals are the cornerstone for assessment that is focused and useful.
4. Assessment requires attention to outcomes but also and equally to the experiences that lead to those outcomes. Information about outcomes is of high importance; where students "end up" matters greatly. But to improve outcomes, we need to know about student experience along the way -- about the curricula, teaching, and kind of student effort that lead to particular outcomes. Assessment can help us understand which students learn best under what conditions; with such knowledge comes the capacity to improve the whole of their learning.
5. Assessment works best when it is ongoing not episodic. Assessment is a process whose power is cumulative. Though isolated, "one-shot" assessment can be better than none, improvement is best fostered when assessment entails a linked series of activities undertaken over time. This may mean tracking the process of individual students, or of cohorts of students; it may mean collecting the same examples of student performance or using the same instrument semester after semester. The point is to monitor progress toward intended goals in a spirit of continuous improvement. Along the way, the assessment process itself should be evaluated and refined in light of emerging insights.
6. Assessment fosters wider improvement when representatives from across the educational community are involved. Student learning is a campus-wide responsibility, and assessment is a way of enacting that responsibility. Thus, while assessment efforts may start small, the aim over time is to involve people from across the educational community. Faculty play an especially important role, but assessment's questions can't be fully addressed without participation by student-affairs educators, librarians, administrators, and students. Assessment may also involve individuals from beyond the campus (alumni/ae, trustees, employers) whose experience can enrich the sense of appropriate aims and standards for learning. Thus understood, assessment is not a task for small groups of experts but a collaborative activity; its aim is wider, better-informed attention to student learning by all parties with a stake in its improvement.
7. Assessment makes a difference when it begins with issues of use and illuminates questions that people really care about. Assessment recognizes the value of information in the process of improvement. But to be useful, information must be connected to issues or questions that people really care about. This implies assessment approaches that produce evidence that relevant parties will find credible, suggestive, and applicable to decisions that need to be made. It means thinking in advance about how the information will be used, and by whom. The point of assessment is not to gather data and return "results"; it is a process that starts with the questions of decision-makers, that involves them in the gathering and interpreting of data, and that informs and helps guide continuous improvement.
8. Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part of a larger set of conditions that promote change. Assessment alone changes little. Its greatest contribution comes on campuses where the quality of teaching and learning is visibly valued and worked at. On such campuses, the push to improve educational performance is a visible and primary goal of leadership; improving the quality of undergraduate education is central to the institution's planning, budgeting, and personnel decisions. On such campuses, information about learning outcomes is seen as an integral part of decision making, and avidly sought.
9. Through assessment, educators meet responsibilities to students and to the public. There is a compelling public stake in education. As educators, we have a responsibility to the publics that support or depend on us to provide information about the ways in which our students meet goals and expectations. But that responsibility goes beyond the reporting of such information; our deeper obligation -- to ourselves, our students, and society -- is to improve. Those to whom educators are accountable have a corresponding obligation to support such attempts at improvement.
To request more information about the Assessment Forum, contact:
One Dupont Circle, Suite 360 Washington DC 20036-1143 Phone 202/293-6440 Fax 202/293-0073 info@aahe.org © 2003 American Association for Higher Education
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)