EMERGING DIALOGUES IN ASSESSMENT

Setting the Stage: Why an Assessment Policy Matters

Assessment has long been understood as a collaborative enterprise—one that relies on shared responsibility and continuous negotiation among faculty, administrators, and staff rather than the work of any single unit (Fulcher et al., 2025). Across higher education, institutions continue to grapple with how to build assessment systems that are not only functional but also meaningful, sustainable, and rooted in faculty engagement. Over the last decade, national conversations have increasingly emphasized the importance of establishing clear frameworks that help campuses connect assessment activities to student learning, institutional priorities, and decision-making processes (Hutchings, Ewell, & Banta, 2012; Kinzie, Jankowski, & Provezis, 2014).

A recurring message in the literature is that policies—when thoughtfully designed—can serve as anchors in otherwise fluid and sometimes fragmented assessment environments. Jankowski and Slotnick (2015) argue that institutions benefit from explicit structures that clarify expectations, reduce ambiguity, and ensure a level of coherence across programs. Similarly, Ariovich et al. (2018) highlight those campuses with well-articulated assessment frameworks are better positioned to connect evidence of learning with broader institutional effectiveness and accreditation efforts.

Yet policies alone do not transform practice. As Clucas Leaderman and Polychronopoulos (2019) and later Morrow et al. (2022) observe, the real impact occurs when policies open space for faculty leadership, cross-campus dialogue, and shared sense-making about student learning. In other words, policies work best when they do not merely dictate procedures but instead cultivate the conditions for collaboration—conditions that help assessment feel less like an external expectation and more like an integrated part of academic work.

These insights resonate deeply with the experience described in this article. At Pratt Institute, the effort to design and implement an academic assessment policy emerged from years of campus-wide conversations about the need for clarity, shared language, and purpose. Faculty and administrators alike recognized that assessment was happening, but unevenly, and often without a coherent structure throughout the institution to support communication, continuity, or long-term improvement. As the institution undertook revisions to its assessment practices it became clear that a policy could help establish a common foundation: one that affirmed faculty leadership, aligned expectations across academic units, and legitimized the work of assessment within the broader institutional culture.

The development of the Academic Assessment Policy, as described later in this article, reflected the same principles championed in national research: collaboration, distributed leadership, transparency, and intentionality. Rather than functioning as a top-down directive, the policy became a mechanism for strengthening campus-wide understanding of assessment, clarifying roles (especially at the program level), and building shared ownership of the process. In doing so, the institution not only enhanced consistency and communication but also laid the groundwork for a more engaged, improvement-oriented culture—one where assessment is anchored in policy but fueled by people.

Institutional Context

Pratt Institute is a premier art, design, and architecture institution located in Brooklyn, New York. The institute enrolls more than 5,000 students with over 70 undergraduate and graduate degree and certificate programs, as well as continuing and professional studies. In 2023, the Faculty Senate partnered with the Office of the Provost to create an institute-wide assessment policy that became the foundation for an assessment infrastructure.

At Pratt, assessment plays a central role in generating evidence of what has been achieved (Melguizo & Coates, 2017). As McClendon and Ho (2016) noted, “Establishing and building a culture of improvement is important in creating and sustaining a high-quality institution” (p. 13). Faculty perspectives also matter. As Ucan et al. (2025) observed, “Understanding how faculty members arrive at pedagogical decisions is crucial for uncovering the multifaceted influences on their instructional practice, thereby informing the design of evidence-based support strategies and institutional policies” (p. 2).

The Need for a Policy

The Faculty Senate initiated a conversation on assessment prompted by the introduction of a new institutional Curricular Review policy. The Institute established policies and procedures for assessment through recommendation of the Academic Policy Committee and the Faculty Senate, and by approval of the Associate Provost of Academic Affairs. A Senate Plenary was held to gather broad input on assessment practices.  Subsequently an assessment policy was drafted and later ratified.

Pratt Institute has a long-standing practice of assessment. Assessment, however, was siloed within academic schools, departments and programs. Although assessment activity was occurring across the institution, it lacked a comprehensive academic assessment policy that clearly articulated expectations, roles, processes, and guiding principles. Assessment practices varied widely across programs and schools, and without a formalized structure, it became difficult to ensure consistency, transparency, and alignment with institutional goals. This gap became increasingly apparent as the institute worked to strengthen its assessment of academic programs—particularly the assessment of student learning and achievement.

The need for a formal policy crystallized when the Curriculum Review policy was being drafted. Faculty began to contemplate the connection between curriculum review and assessment. The Office of the Provost and Faculty Senate agreed to make a separate assessment policy to respond to that question. This questioning affirmed what many on campus had already sensed: without a unified policy framework, assessment work risked remaining fragmented, disconnected from curricular revisions, and overly dependent on individual departments' practices rather than functioning as an integrated institutional system.

When I began as the Director of Academic Assessment, the Academic Assessment Policy and the institutional need behind it immediately shaped my work. Supported by the Associate Provost of Academic Affairs and sustained engagement from the Faculty Senate, academic administrators, and faculty across campus, I focused on translating the policy from an approved document into a shared framework ready for implementation.

In doing so, we expanded Robert et al.’s (2021) conception of an assessment policy beyond program-level structures to an institutional framework applicable across diverse schools and disciplines. The policy affirmed faculty leadership, inclusion, transparency, and appropriate administrative support—principles grounded in institutional values. Ultimately, the policy provided a shared rationale for assessment, supported new initiatives such as structured reporting cycles and program-level Assessment Facilitators which reframed assessment as faculty-driven and institutionally supported. By grounding assessment in policy, Pratt created a durable infrastructure for sustain long-term improvement.

From my perspective, the Academic Assessment Policy became invaluable. It established a clear and coherent rationale for our assessment work and provided a formal foundation for subsequent initiatives, including data collection, reporting cycles, professional development, and the creation of new roles such as Assessment Facilitators. It also provided the legitimacy and structure necessary to foster broader campus engagement, ensuring that assessment was not perceived as an external mandate but as an institutionally supported, faculty-driven endeavor. In grounding assessment efforts in a formal institutional policy, Pratt created not just a document but a durable infrastructure—one capable of supporting consistent practice, informed decision-making, and long-term sustainability. The policy is a commitment to strengthening student learning, program quality, and institutional coherence.

The Pratt Assessment Policy

When I began implementing the Academic Assessment Policy, I was struck by how effective it was in getting people on the same page around the institutional assessment process. While the policy outlines eight principles, its real value lay in how those principles created a shared way of understanding assessment work. The policy was less about imposing rules and more about creating clarity.

A central feature of the policy is its structure for assessment leadership, organized across three levels: Institute, School, and Program. At the institute level, responsibility rests with the Office of the Provost, including the Associate Provost of Academic Affairs and the Director of Academic Assessment. School-level leadership is held by Deans, Assistant Deans, Chairs and Assistant Chairs. At the program level, there the introduction of a new Assessment Facilitator role.

The policy outlines eight guiding principles of assessment and describes leadership structures at three levels:

• Institute level: Office of the Provost (Associate Provost of Academic Affairs and Director of Academic Assessment) Faculty Senate.
• School level: Deans, Assistant Deans, Chairs and Assistant Chairs.
• Program level: Assessment Facilitators appointed by department chairs.

Assessment Facilitator Roles and Responsibilities

Assessment Facilitators coordinate assessment activities within programs and collaborate with the Provost’s Office. They work with faculty, Program Directors, department Chairs, and colleagues across schools to strengthen assessment practice. Their responsibilities are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Roles and responsibilities of Assessment Facilitators

Implementation of the Assessment role evolved in a very organic way. Departments needed assessment support and assessment work needed continuity; the Assessment Facilitator role emerged as a natural missing piece. This role filled a gap by helping sustain assessment continuity. In practice, Facilitator’s function as bridge-builders—maintaining bi-lateral communication between institute-level recommendations and departmental practice. They check in with faculty, keep assessment discussions active, and help ensure that institute-level priorities are understood and applied locally. Through regular meetings and workshops with the Director of Academic Assessment, Facilitators also have a peer network which encourages faculty dialogue about assessment.

Their responsibilities sound formal when listed—collaboration, coordination, ensuring, disseminating—but what I saw behind the scenes was more nuanced. Collaboration is not just attending meetings; it is faculty talking to their colleagues about assessment and realizing that they are not alone with wrestling with this and sharing ideas. It means serving as a liaison that shares institutional expectations with departments and departmental needs with the institution. Coordination is the gentle and consistent nudging that keeps assessment conversations alive in curriculum and faculty meetings where assessment can easily slide to the bottom of the agenda. Ensuring documents are uploaded sometimes means helping colleagues use the right template and identifying the appropriate types of documents that are needed for evidence. Disseminating results goes beyond presenting at faculty meetings. It means identifying multiple ways to talk about assessment and making results accessible to faculty, students, parents and all stake holders.

Benefits of an Institutional Assessment Policy

If I step back and look at what this policy really gave us, the benefits do not necessarily line up neatly in a linear list—but here is a list for those who need one.

1. Establishes the authority of the assessment process.
2. Develops a structured approach for collecting and using assessment data.
3. Ensures consistency across schools and departments.
4. Promotes transparency in the sharing of assessment results.
5. Reinforces institutional accountability for student learning.

What mattered more was how the policy helped settle long-standing uncertainties. Suddenly, faculty knew who to go to. Academic administrators were clear about institutional expectations. There was an institutional structure that supported real bi-directional communication.

Did it help establish authority? Sure, but in a way that felt shared rather than imposed. Did it create consistency? Absolutely, but more importantly, it created coherence—the sense that we were all working toward the same goals with the same understanding. Transparency and accountability became part of how people talked about their curriculum, programs, and their students.

If I had to summarize it for a colleague, I would say this: The policy formalized assessment at Pratt—it gave people room, clarity, and confidence to actually engage in it. And from my vantage point, that shift was the real win.

Conclusion

When I reflect on the process of implementing this faculty-led Academic Assessment Policy, what stands out to me most is how much it changed the way we all talk about assessment. Once we put a shared definition and rationale on paper, faculty, staff, and administrators suddenly had a common starting point, and the conversations became easier, clearer, and a lot more productive. As the policy took root, assessment stopped feeling like an exercise in compliance and started looking more like something we were doing for ourselves—for our students, our programs, and our own growth as educators.

What surprised me most was how much difference it made to establish a distributive leadership model. Bringing in program-level Assessment Facilitators ended up being one of the most meaningful parts of the whole experience. It gave faculty a sense of genuine ownership over the direction of assessment in their programs. I watched people who once felt uncertain about assessment, step into leadership roles with more confidence. The ripple effects were real: better communication, more competence, and stronger professional communities within departments regarding assessment.

In the end, this experience reminded me that when institutions trust faculty leadership, provide clear structures, and share responsibilities across levels, good things follow. You start to see assessment being used the way it’s meant to be used: to make curriculum better, to make programs stronger, and to make the institution more thoughtful about assessment. This may serve as a model for other colleges and universities that are trying to build or rebuild their assessment systems.  Clarity, collaboration, and distributed leadership really do matter—and they make the work not only more effective, but more meaningful.

References

Ariovich, L., Bral, L., Gregg, N., Gulliford, S., & Morrow, J. (2018). An examination of the relationship between assessment policies and institutional effectiveness. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

Clucas Leaderman, L., & Polychronopoulos, G. (2019). Faculty-driven assessment: Lessons from implementing collaborative models. Assessment Update, 31(6), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/au.31244

Fulcher, K. H., Good, M. R., & Sanchez, E. R. H. (2025). Assessment 101 in higher education: The fundamentals and how to apply them. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Hutchings, P., Ewell, P., & Banta, T. (2012). Trends in learning outcomes assessment: Where we stand and where we’re headed. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

Jankowski, N. A., & Slotnick, R. C. (2015). Degrees that matter: Moving higher education to a learning systems paradigm. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

Kickert, R., Meeuwisse, M., Arends, L. R., Prinzie, P., & Stegers-Jager, K. M. (2021). Assessment policies and academic progress: Differences in performance and selection for progress. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(7), 1140–1156. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1845607

Kinzie, J., Jankowski, N., & Provezis, S. (2014). Assessment for improvement: Tracking student engagement and learning. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.

McClendon, K., & Ho, T. (2016). Building a quality assessment process for measuring and documenting student learning. Assessment Update, 28(2), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/au.30053

Melguizo, T., & Coates, H. (2017). The value of assessing higher education student learning outcomes. AERA Open, 3(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417710760

Morrow, J., Polychronopoulos, G., Clucas Leaderman, L., & Christen, L. (2022). Creating capacity for improvement: How assessment leadership roles support institutional learning. Research & Practice in Assessment, 17(2), 45–63.

Ucan, S., Yıldırım Hoş, H., Karataş, İ. H., & Bülbül, Y. (2025). Faculty assessment choices in higher education: Drivers, strategies, and decision-making styles for fair and inclusive practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2511792