Assessment of undergraduate and graduate programs

• Published in: Public relations review 1999, Vol.25 (1), p.65-75
• Main Authors: Rybacki, Donald, Lattimore, Dan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: College students; Educational Objectives; Evaluation Methods; Evaluation Problems; Grades (Scholastic); Higher Education; National Communication Association; National Surveys; Polls & surveys; Public Relations; Quality of education; School Surveys; Statistical analysis; Student Evaluation; Students; Studies; Teachers
• ISSN: 0363-8111; 1873-4537
• DOI: 10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80128-3

Data from an international survey of public relations educators and practitioners raises a number of concerns about how achievement is measured among public relations students. Fewer than one in four academic programs have actually assessed learning outcomes and used the results to enhance their students' educational experiences. Fewer than one in four practitioners have been involved in some way as assessors. The survey suggests that educators place too much stock in grades alone as an appropriate assessment tool. While both educators and practitioners value portfolio reviews as an assessment protocol, practitioners see much greater value in their involvement in this form of assessment than their faculty counterparts. These differences of opinion notwithstanding, current practice and the opinions of educators and practitioners coalesce around the value of capstone experiences such as internships, simulation or case study analysis and surveys of alumni satisfaction as a core around which assessment plans can be built. The Assessment Task Team at the 1998 NCA Summer Conference developed a multidimensional model of assessment that reflects three principles of good practice. First, assessment plans which measure knowledge, behavior and affect at various points in students' academic careers rather than only at the end of a degree program are able to demonstrate change and the value added by the program of study. Second, specific outcomes may be measured by repeated applications of the same assessment protocol or by the use of different protocols over time. Third, appropriate use of a single assessment protocol to measure multiple outcomes, especially when those outcomes are drawn from two or more of the broad categories of knowledge, behavior and affect results in maximizing the information gained while minimizing the resources devoted to assessment.