It is critical in Assessment that all defined outcomes are measurable. It is the measurement of the “outcome” that elucidates the area for improvement which is the true purpose of assessment. Once you determine the outcome is measurable, determine if it is useful. Even if we had time to waste on work that serves no purpose, few of us like doing so! The key to successful assessment is identifying areas that need and can be improved within the constraints present at NMSU.
There are two major categories of measurement – direct and indirect. Direct measurement is the actual measurement of the activity of the learner. This is frequently used in measuring student learning in the classroom where exams, papers, presentations, etc. can be evaluated for specific examples of learning (or not). While this is the preferred type of measurement, it is usually more difficult to do in the more open, group oriented activities that occur in Student Affairs offices. Indirect measurement is the measurement of perceptions or opinions of the learner. A common example of indirect measurement is surveys. While often used extensively in Student Affairs, it must be remembered that this type of measurement is based on belief instead of actuality. The best case scenario is to include multiple measurements of an outcome, striving to include both direct and indirect measurements.
Student Learning Outcomes should not be done in a vacuum. It is possible to use measurement tools that that provide information for multiple outcomes at a time, and those outcomes could be from multiple offices. An example is the use of national surveys by NMSU to look at the institution as a whole. There are often questions included in those surveys that can provide some measurement for an outcome defined by your office. Two (or more) offices can work together on a survey instrument or an event for direct measurement. Not only does this save resources (i.e. money and time), but could make assessment a little more fun!