There is a well-known Bible verse in the Book of Matthew that says, “No one can serve two masters.” I was thinking about that adage recently when discussing assessment with some colleagues. We were discussing a department’s assessment plan for the coming academic year and I was repeatedly asked if the accrediting body “would be okay with it.”
Assessment has the unfortunate role of trying to serve two masters. The first and primary role of assessment is to measure student learning in the classroom/program/college, and to use this information to inform curricular changes with the goal of increasing student learning.
The second master that has begun creeping into my conversations with faculty is the issue of accountability. Will this satisfy our accrediting body? Will the state board think this is okay? Does this meet the requirements?
It is hard to meet the needs of two masters that are so fundamentally different in expectations and requirements. So how does academia address this dilemma?
How can assessment serve two masters? Accomplishing assessment’s primary goal is a collegial process involving faculty and students. It is also messy and iterative and takes time to do, time to understand, and time to implement. In order to achieve the second goal—that of accountability— the collegial and necessary processes seem unable to accommodate many of the expectations. Assessments for the sake of accountability typically prefer numbers and require outcomes, expediency, and measures that are fixed.
Right now I only have a short-term answer. When discussing this with my previously mentioned colleagues, I told them, “You worry about student learning in the program, I’ll worry about addressing the accrediting bodies and state agencies.” I know that is really an incomplete answer. But it is the path we are taking here at the college, for now.
Someday, somehow, we need to figure out a more complete and satisfying answer because, you know, you really can’t serve two masters.
Sheri H. Barrett, Ed.D.