Johanna Phelps
ASSESSMENT
Assessment of student learning in a community engaged course, like its nonengaged counterparts, hinges upon students’ level of competence with course outcomes. Howard et al. (2001) suggest civic learning has to do with the orientation of learning and the sources coursework privileges as holding useful knowledge in much the same way previously emphasized here:
While in traditional courses we assess students’ learning from traditional course resources, e.g., textbooks, class discussions, library research, etc., in service-learning courses we evaluate students’ learning from traditional resources, from the community service, and from the blending of the two… academic credit is not awarded for doing service… but rather for the student’s demonstration of academic and civic learning (19).
As is the case with other types of courses, learning outcomes should be established at the outset, particularly those upon which students will be evaluated. Students should be aware of how points/grades are allocated based on their performance working with partners, as well as any assessment of reflections. A student’s ability to independently articulate specific course aims/outcomes with attention to their own educational, professional, and civic benefit, as well as benefits both to the community and the university, should likewise inform the basis of their reflective practice before entering into any engaged coursework.
In a move to civic learning on behalf of students and reciprocity on behalf of community partners, Shumake and Wendler-Shah (2017) argue for community-based assessments where students are held directly accountable by the community in an epistemological power shift. Giving community partners the option to assess students’ work is a direct method of privileging the community’s knowledge as equivalent to other course materials while holding students accountable to their own civic development (8-9). The suggest that if “students are only graded on their reflective writing about the community project, or the instructor’s perception of the student’s performance in the partnership, this may lead students to focus only on instructor needs and values” (12). Importantly, the possibilities/frameworks for community partner evaluation of outputs should prompt students to be primarily concerned with community interactions. In English 402 at WSU Vancouver, we work to build a framework designed towards specific learning objectives with partner needs at the fore. Because of the large population of non-majors in this particular course (it is a “service” course for many colleges), the learning experience is designed differently than, say, for students in the major, such as those who enroll in English 461 at WSU. For the proposed design work here, much occurs well before a project begins, (and often before the semester begins). With a constructed learning environment, students are assured that their focus should be supporting partners through specified tasks, for which instructors serve as consultants– providing extended reading, feedback, insights, and support. Such constructs are not advisable in all courses, or feasible. For instance, in English 461, a course designed for students in the major, students are provided constraints for establishing their own relationships with partners and bringing projects into the course. Assessment and reflection constructs in these two courses look vastly different, but are equally important.
Of course, community-based assessment is not always possible, even if it is desirable from the perspective Shumake and Wendler-Shah propose; what a given organization can or cannot commit to in terms of active participation in a relationship is a question of initial capacity – of capital and labor. For example, in the model Shumake and Wendler-Shah propose, the “validity” and “reliability” of community members’ grading involves “strategies such as scoring guides, student ‘anchor’ work that exemplifies various grades, administrative oversight, and norming discussions among graders.” As such, while incorporating community partners’ feedback into student assessment is an excellent method to shift the balance of power towards the partners themselves, it is not appropriate or feasible in every instance.
At WSU Vancouver, assessment with partners is iterative and, in English 402, partners review drafts of major projects before the finals are submitted. Some partners opt to evaluate students’ work based on rubrics co-created with partners. Rubric criteria in these materials, like all rubrics used in the course, are tied directly back to the course learning objectives. Establishing partners’ preferences early in the semester, budgeting time and planning to account for partner feedback on early student drafts, and inviting and making clear that partners are c0-equal evaluators of student work (both to students and partners) are critical considerations and points of reflection in preparing assessment practices.
