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

Stephen J. Friedman, Outcomes, Learning, and Assessment in General Education 17such considerations in formative assessments; the stakes are low and the solepurpose is to provide feedback so teachers can help improve learning. Thus,the two kinds of assessment—formative and summative—serve decidedlydifferent purposes and should never be confused.This section on learning began with the hope that outcomes for any classwould be heavily weighted towards the higher levels of thinking in Bloom’sTaxonomy. This is the realm in which learning starts to get interesting for thestudent (and the teacher). Active learning comprises a number of techniqueswhereby students are more fully engaged with the content of the course—as participants in the educational process as opposed to spectators. Thisdiscussion moved into one about formative assessment (and the seminal workof Angelo and Cross) and summative assessment. Many of these ideas willreappear, though perhaps in a slightly different form, as I turn my attention toassessment within the context of GEPs.AssessmentAs described above, outcomes for a GEP should be developed inconcert with the stated goal of the program, but even if outcomes are notassessed, surely students have learned something, right? But what havethey learned? Faculty might implore us to trust them. There is a saying inassessment circles: “In God we trust; everyone else bring data.” 15 This isperhaps an overstatement, but why should those who financially supporthigher education (or anyone else, for that matter) put that kind of trust in15 The phrase, “In God We Trust,” appears on all United States currency and coins.