0.4 4. designing performance assessments: a guide for faculty; gary  (Page 3/12)

Next, faculty review course syllabi and indicate which of the elements in the matrix are intended outcomes of instruction in the various courses by placing an “X” in the appropriate cell. The completed matrix is then analyzed to determine patterns of distribution and identify any gaps where certain elements are not being addressed. In the example, there are no gaps for Performance Expectation 2 and only one indicator is taught in both of the two courses listed. The patterns in the sample matrix also show that assessment and accountability in this hypothetical program curriculum are topics addressed apart from curriculum, instruction, and professional development. This mapping process graphically illustrates the distribution of performance indicators across courses and the matrix is a good way to provide accreditation or program reviewers with evidence that the curriculum is aligned with the standards once any required adjustments have been made in response to the initial findings.

During the construction of the alignment and distribution matrix it is likely that some indicators will be listed as intended outcomes in multiple courses. These overlaps occur because standards documents are organized around performance categories and the curriculum for many leadership preparation programs are organized around traditional course offerings, each of which can cover a range of performances. Where performance indicators overlap multiple courses, faculty are faced with a decision regarding whether to use multiple assessments of the same performance or assign each indicator to a unique course and assess the performance only once in the program.

When making a decision regarding the final distribution of indicators, faculty should consider the total assessment burden associated with each course. In programs organized around traditional course offerings, the assessment burden will usually be greater in classes that emphasize the application of knowledge and skills than in classes that focus on the development of theoretical frameworks. This bias toward relevance and practicality is embedded in the standards documents themselves, which emphasize the enactment of leadership.