Volume 94 - Winter 2006	Download

President's Report by Shauna Anderson, PhD, MT(ASCP)C, CLS(NCA) President, Board of Directors

One of the main purposes and benefits of the accreditation process is to encourage continued improvement in programs. The professions have defined entry-level competencies and programs have defined student learning outcomes, usually course by course. The only means that an instructor or program director has of knowing that those student learning outcomes have been attained is through assessment.

Program directors and faculty members are responsible to determine both what students should learn and how that learning should be demonstrated. It is the program directors that must provide the leadership to communicate not only how those learning outcomes should be defined but also initiate the development of assessment tools that will ultimately measure the achievement of the outcomes. When the faculty become involved, they are more likely to buy into the process. Joint ownership will foster a feeling of accomplishment and pride rather than imposing punitive actions.

As we begin to evaluate student learning, we need to collect evidence that learning has occurred. This assessment can be formative or summative. Formative assessment allows students to measure where they are in their progress toward mastery and make course corrections if necessary. This type of monitoring promotes self improvement. Its hallmark is feedback-from instructors, colleagues and even self. It is an ongoing effort to enhance the student's performance or a program's effectiveness.

Summative assessment is often comparative-a measurement of progress that justifies a grade or ranking or of success in meeting a requirement. This type of assessment is not designed to provide any type of feedback during the course of instruction but it can also play a positive role in shaping courses and programs overtime.

Another term that is applied to assessment is benchmarking or the establishment of a standard of excellence as a goal to be attained. Benchmarking techniques may be applied when two similar programs compare data from outcomes. Another type of benchmarking may occur if a program sets goals (benchmarks) for achievement in a specified time.

As assessment tools are created, the evaluation of student learning can be accomplished through direct or indirect methods. If the evidence for student learning outcomes takes the form of products or performance, it is direct. Examples include pass rates on certification exams or supervisor ratings. Indirect methods imply that learning has occurred through means such as course evaluations, job placement or employer surveys. These methods provide either qualitative or quantitative data. Both forms of data provide important evidence of student learning outcomes.

Laboratorians are familiar with quantitative data which consist of numerical evidence. Because numerical evidence is subject to statistical analysis, conclusions about course or program outcomes can be tested for reliability and validity. Quantitative data, therefore, make comparisons easier to evaluate.

Qualitative data can be just as reliable, objective and valid as quantitative data. Moreover, it may provide insight about issues and concerns that are not easily assessable by other means. Consider, for example, the personal views expressed in an alumni survey.

As program directors begin to involve faculty in the assessment of student learning outcomes, the use of multiple approaches should be encouraged. The worth of stating student learning outcomes for our professions, programs and courses has long been recognized. Students improve their achievement of learning outcomes when they know what is expected. Designing the appropriate assessment tools is our next challenge. It is only through evaluation of the evidence collected that programs will be able to prove accountability and strive for improvement.
 

Top of the News
			Change in Timing of the Initial Application Fee
			NAACLS Approves Standards for the Clinical Doctorate by David D. Gale, PhD Chair, NAACLS Graduate Task Force
			NAACLS Considers Providing Another Service to Program Directors CEO's Corner by Dianne M. Cearlock, PhD Chief Executive Officer
			President's Report by Shauna Anderson, PhD, MT(ASCP)C, CLS(NCA) President, Board of Directors
Features
			An Invitation to Nominate
			Dr. NAACLS Advice for Accredited and Approved Programs
			Dr. Olive Kimball Honored by NAACLS
			NAACLS Board of Directors Update September 2006
Other News
			NAACLS Approves AAPA Representative Position on Board
			NAACLS to Conduct Meetings in April 2007
			NAACLS to Present Workshop at CLEC 07
			Newly Accredited and Approved Programs September 2006

	Select an Issue   Vol 109 - Fall 2011 Vol 108 - Summer 2011 Vol 107 - Spring 2011 Vol 106 - Volume 106 - Fall NAACLS News Vol 105 - Summer 2010 Vol 104 - Spring 2010 NAACLS News Vol 103 - Fall 2009 NAACLS News Vol 102 - Summer 2009 Vol 101 - Spring 2009 Vol 100 - Winter 2008 Vol 99 - Summer 2008 Vol 98 - Spring 2008 Vol 97 - Winter 2007 Vol 96 - Summer 2007 Vol 95 - Spring 2007 Vol 94 - Winter 2006 Vol 93 - Spring/Summer 2006 Vol 92 - Special Edition Vol 91 - Winter 2005 Vol 90 - Fall 2005 Vol 89 - Spring/Summer 2005 Vol 87 - Fall 2004 Vol 86 - Spring/Summer 2004 Vol 85 - Fall 2003 Vol 84 - Spring/Summer 2003 Vol 83 - Winter 2003 Vol 82 - Fall 2002 Vol 81 - Spring / Summer 2002 Vol 80 - Winter 2002 Vol 79 - Fall 2001 Vol 78 - Spring / Summer 2001 Vol 77 - Winter 2001 Vol 76 - Fall 2000 Vol 75 - Spring / Summer 2000 Vol 74 - Winter 2000 Vol 73 - Fall 1999 Vol 72 - Spring / Summer 1999 Vol 71 - Winter 1999 Vol 70 - Fall 1998 Vol 69 - Spring / Summer 1998 Vol 68 - Winter 1998 Vol 67 - Fall 1997 Vol 66 - Spring 1997 Vol 65 - Winter 1996 Vol 64 - Summer 1996 Vol 63 - Spring 1996 Vol 62 - Winter 1996 Vol 61 - Summer 1995 Vol 60 - Spring 1995 Vol 59 - Fall 1994 Vol 58 - Summer 1994 Vol 57 - Spring 1994 Vol 56 - Fall 1993 Vol 55 - Summer 1993 Vol 54 - Spring 1993 Vol 53 - Fall 1992 Vol 52 - Summer 1992 Vol 51 - Spring 1992 Vol 50 - Fall 1991 Vol 49 - Summer 1991 Vol 48 - Spring 1991 Vol 47 - Fall 1990 Vol 46 - Summer 1990 Vol 45 - Spring 1990 Vol 44 - Fall 1989 Vol 43 - Summer 1989 Vol 42 - Winter 1989 Vol 41 - Fall 1988 Vol 40 - April 1988 Vol 39 - December 1987 Vol 38 - September 1987 Vol 37 - Spring 1987 Vol 36 - Winter 1987 Vol 35 - October 1986 Vol 34 - November 1985 Vol 33 - November 1984 Vol 32 - July 1984 Vol 31 - November 1983 Vol 30 - November 1982 Vol 29 - November 1981 Vol 28 - December 1980 Vol 27 - August 1980 Vol 26 - September 1979 Vol 25 - August 1979 Vol 24 - June 1979 Vol 23 - February 1979 Vol 22 - October 1978 Vol 21 - July 1978 Vol 20 - April 1978 Vol 19 - October 1977 Vol 18 - July 1977 Vol 17 - April 1977 Vol 16 - February 1977 Vol 15 - November 1976 Vol 14 - September 1976 Vol 13 - June 1976 Vol 12 - December 1975 Vol 11 - October 1975 Vol 10 - August 1975 Vol 9 - July 1975 Vol 8 - June 1975 Vol 7 - April 1975 Vol 6 - February 1975 Vol 5 - December 1974 Vol 4 - November 1974 Vol 3 - September 1974 Vol 2 - August 1974 Vol 1 - June 1974