Assessment, particularly program assessment, has reached a new height in the APSA with the publication of an edited volume, Assessment in Political Science (2008), followed by the appointment in 2010 of an association-wide working group on assessment. This task force has been asked to investigate current practices in program assessment and make recommendations regarding the role that the APSA should play to help departments and faculty conduct assessment better. Track participants were encouraged to think about how the issues they raised could help guide the APSA's overall approach to assessment.
Track papers focused on many topics, including methods of course delivery, pre- and postcourse assessments, and a comparison of British and U.S. approaches to political science curricula and assessment. Participants also discussed issues related to P–16 initiatives, the vital role that top administrators play in expressing support for assessment, and the benefits of involving students in assessment programs and research. However, this track summary focuses primarily on the discussion that occurred during the last session of the conference, when each participant was asked to discuss key issues raised by track papers and discussion.
One of the challenges for improving the status and quality of program assessment in political science is the need to better integrate courses and program assessment. Several participants observed that faculty members typically think about their courses in isolation from the rest of the political science curriculum. Thus, participants concluded that faculty members may be more receptive to classroom and course-level assessment than they are to program assessment. Paradoxically, regional academic accrediting bodies require programmatic and/or institutional-level assessments. While classroom assessment is applauded, it must be integrated with program assessment to meet the standards of regional and other accreditors. Several track contributors noted that the logical way to address this challenge is to identify how each course in the curriculum supports larger programmatic purposes, thereby aligning course assessment with programmatic student outcomes.
Track participants acknowledged that this effort will not be easy, since the challenges of connecting course and program assessment are symptomatic of larger issues identified by several track papers. Typically, program curricula in political science are idiosyncratic and distributional, and faculty members primarily seek to create and teach courses that align with their individual specialty. If the curriculum is not intentional in its development of students' knowledge and skills, then it will be difficult to create program assessments that accurately measure the essence of the degree program.
Although most track participants reported that their interest in assessment stemmed from accreditation pressures, a number of participants argued for a larger, more purposive motivation for assessment. Rather than just doing assessment to comply with accreditors' requirements, they believed that the APSA should be helping departments think about using assessment more strategically. Specifically, these participants suggested that more assessment should be designed to respond to the larger higher education predicament. As higher education comes under increased pressure and scrutiny from regional accreditors and the public, demonstrating strong evidence of improved student learning outcomes in important skills, knowledge, and attitudes could be the most successful way to change the public's view. Embracing assessment as a change agent could also help programs avert even more draconian assessment mandates. Collecting information on successful assessment strategies would help the discipline identify political science's unique learning outcomes and role in higher education. Given the discipline's use of social scientific methods and its development of policy analysis, several participants envisioned the potential for political science to serve as a policy consultant for higher education. Why not use our discipline to help advance the interests of higher education in general? Better curricular planning, data collection, and dissemination strategies could enable higher education to “tell its story” more effectively.
The opposite strategy for assessment was also outlined by track participants. This perspective suggests that it is important for the APSA working group to identify ways to comply with assessment mandates that do not require much time or investment of other resources. Those who suspect that the assessment movement will be a temporary feature of accreditation might be more likely to embrace a minimal compliance model. Similarly, those whose administration provides neither resources nor support for assessment are likely to favor the minimal model.
The pressures from accreditors, the public, and a highly competitive world economy suggest that demands for accountability are here to stay for the foreseeable future. Some panel participants focused their assessments and analyses on the macro-level needs of higher education, while others limited assessment efforts to minimal compliance. In this regard, the Program Assessment track seems representative of higher education. As political science departments consider which strategy to pursue, the APSA working group should investigate programs in the country, offer support materials, and report on the costs and benefits of effective practices in assessment to help departments navigate their place on the assessment spectrum.
