It has been said that universities have three undergraduate curricula: The one that appears in the catalog, the one that professors teach, and the one that students actually learn. To what degree does the curriculum asserted on paper or imagined by deans and dons accurately portray what goes on in the minds of students? Making the three curricula visible so they can be brought into register is the business of assessment, an activity practiced by every department at SIUE.
Learner-Centered Authentic Assessment
The core ---but surely not the only--- component of SIUE's assessment program is the department-based Senior Assignment or SRA. An SRA is a scholarly engagement between a student and dedicated professor(s) that results in a product. Depending on the discipline, this product is a written thesis, work of art, software protocol, musical composition, hardware design, stage play, mathematical proof, oral presentation, portfolio, or some combination of these and other forms of expression. Because the product is visible, it, and the curriculum that produced it, can be assessed. In assessment theory, the supervised practice of the discipline by students prior to graduation is known as authentic assessment, which is differentiated from other, more elementary forms, such as the standardized exam. At SIUE, assessment rests on the fundamental belief that graduation is not bestowed on students merely for their four-year survival as classroom stenographers. It also presumes that a very few, if any, of our graduates will spend their work days solving synthetic word analogies. Thus, the quality of SIUE's curriculum reveals itself authentically through student performance on real tasks taught to them in each discipline.
Limits and Expectations
Within broad limits, the structure of each Senior Assignment is owned by the individual department, which announces the goals for its students, sets the standards and expectations, and then openly presents and assesses the resulting SRAs. The "broad limits" across all departments are these: (a) each student must demonstrate a grasp of general education as well as of the major discipline itself, (b) the assessment must be "high stakes" to assure motivation, with a grade or even graduation itself hanging in the balance, and (c) the departmental faculty as a whole must view and assess the results.
(a) General Education
Invoking general education as a central component of the Senior Assignment matches the university's published mission statement. Operationally, it means (to use a stereotype) that an engineering student cannot simply design a bridge, submit the drawing with supporting text, and be done with the Senior Assignment. No, besides structural integrity, a bridge possesses aesthetic qualities such as style, grace, and compatibility with its environment. In bridge design, a student engineer must demonstrate and defend to the faculty the aesthetic choices in the design. Moreover, a bridge connects political and geographical entities ---islands, cities, states, countries--- across a boundary. Those entities may have shared in the costs of building the bridge. If one of the entities is an island, the bridge might bring the island economic growth but take away its autonomy. To what extent does the student demonstrate economic, social, and political awareness? Finally, bridges deteriorate and fail, sometimes gradually as they age, sometimes suddenly and catastrophically. To what degree does the student present and defend a sense of ethical responsibility? It is by answering questions such as these that appreciation of general education is made visible through the Senior Assignment.
(b) Motivation
SRAs compel students to abandon the role of mere note-taker and to immerse themselves in the role of educational participant. While engaged in the SRA, students must take on the activity of, and not be merely a receptacle for, learning. Unlike standardized tests, which are not part of the curriculum and do nut carry a grade, SRAs are embedded in normal teaching and learning. Students are motivated to invest themselves in the curriculum because, in part, they help to contrive SRA projects around their own interests and styles of learning. Through the products of their work, they reveal whether they have learned what the university says it teaches. Through assessment, the three curricula are melded into one.
(c) Faculty Roles and Responsibilities
SRAs have a transforming effect on the curriculum only insofar as faculty members view the consequences of their own teaching. Senior Assignment presentations and defenses are not rotated through otherwise unbusy professors who grade them privately in the department's behalf. No, SRAs, regardless of structure, are exhibited in announced forums where they are witnessed --- and assessed--- by a substantial fraction of the departmental faculty. In these forums, professors confront the consequences of their teaching. Departments willing to take greater risks receive greater feedback. Among the more adventurous departments, SRA presentations are public affairs that involve other members of the university community and external reviewers of stature. Examples include Chemistry's inclusion of a Nobel Laureate and other distinguished visitors, Engineering's use of company CEOs from St. Louis, and psychology's choice of venue as the Midwestern Psychological Association's Annual Meeting in Chicago, all for the purpose of gaining quality assessment by external reviewers. Such experiences validate and, when appropriate, recalibrate faculty standards of what constitutes academic rigor. The result is that departments seeking to improve disciplinary acumen and general education skills can build the culture of evidence from which to do so.
Liberty and Opportunity
Quality assurance through assessment of the Senior Assignment is owned by the faculty of each department. Some departments are better at managing and experimenting with assessment than others. As is true for students, professors learn new things by doing them, and assessment is a new thing for most. Within the broad limits identified above, individual departments decide how to "do" the Senior Assignment and match it to their own goals. Therefore, success can be incremental and uneven, but it is sure. SIUE's assessment focus is on internal improvement and it draws its power from what dedicated professors honor: Sharing their scholarship with dedicated apprentices. Yet the byproduct of sincere internal assessment is the proficiency not only to survive, but to prosper from external review. Through authentic assessment, Boyer's scholarships of discovery, integration, and application are transformed into the scholarship of teaching. And that can be assessed, too.