ä¸‹è¼‰å ¨æ›¸ - The Chinese University of Hong Kong

26 Special Topic: Assessment in University General Education Program
(impression of overall performance), depending upon the type of information
being sought through the assessment (Gronlund & Brookhart, 2009).
The highest validity for such instruments occurs when peers, supervisors,
or employers are asked to rate students’ overt, observable behaviors rather
than the students’ attitudes or motivations (Gronlund & Brookhart, 2009).
For example, it would be better to include items on a checklist or rating scale
such as “Student maintains consistent work hours” and “Student completes
assigned tasks within specified time limits” rather than asking others to rate
students’ attitudes using items such as, “Student shows professionalism” or
“Student values a strong work ethic.” It is likely that assessment devices
already exist for many courses involving peer group projects, internships,
or co-op employment. With careful attention to the affective ILOs, slight
modifications of those assessment devices could yield useful data to evaluate
the achievement of affective learning outcomes from informants other than
the students themselves.
Program-level Assessment of Affective Learning Outcomes
Institutions must carefully consider the process and timing of measuring
affective learning outcomes. Some outcomes are expected to occur gradually
over time, as the result of the cumulative experiences of students over multiple
classes, rather than being mastered within the context of a single, semesterlong
course (e.g., “Students will value life-long learning” or “Students
will develop sensitivity to the common concerns of human existence”).
Particularly in the case of attitudinal change, where change is often subtle, it
may be important to consider program-level assessment of affective learning
outcomes rather than focusing exclusively on course-level assessment of
those learning outcomes.