Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/56065
Callout —Callout author No More Fatal Flaws a policy stating that student work will only be acceptable if it is free of "fatal flaws." At Bryant University, Carol DeMoranville adapted Martell's policy for written assignments and identified ten fatal spelling, grammar, punctuation, and format errors. These include misspelled words, sentence fragments, run-on sentences, erroneous capital- izations, incorrect punctuation, mistakes in verb tense or subject/verb agreement, improper cita- tions, incorrect word usage or awkward writing, and lack of conformity with assignment format. In DeMoranville's class, papers are unaccept- A able if they contain more than three fatal flaws per page or ten per document. When either fig- ure is exceeded, she will return the paper to the student without a grade. The student must correct it and return it by the next class, and the final grade will be reduced by 10 percent. A paper that still contains fatal flaws after it has been returned and resubmitted can receive a grade no higher than a D. She tells students, "It is in your best interest to give yourself enough time to complete the assign- ment and carefully proofread and/or use avail- able help before you submit the paper the first time." She suggests that they use spelling and grammar checking software or seek advice from staff at the school's writing center if they need help avoiding fatal flaws. Having such a specific policy in place is use- ful for faculty, DeMoranville points out. It gives them a template for determining when a written assignment is acceptable—and, by extension, determining whether students are really achiev- ing the learning goals set out by the assessment guidelines. Since instituting the policy, DeMoran- ville has seen a significant improvement in the quality of her students' written assignments and a corresponding decrease in the amount of time it takes to grade those assignments. ssessment expert Kathryn Martell suggests that student writing will improve if faculty institute much time and effort an individual had to spend perform- ing assessment tasks. Ultimately, however, a few faculty were only motivated to get involved when we made it clear that substandard assurance of learning programs could cause us to lose AACSB accreditation. • I won't give up my academic freedom. Early in the pro- cess at Bryant, we spent time educating faculty about what assessment is and isn't. We specifically stated that assessment would not result in the school dictating what faculty should or shouldn't do in the classroom. To date, the only mandate arising from the assessment process is that all faculty must have course objectives on their syllabi and those objectives should align with some of the program learning goals. We do not specify what the objec- tives should be nor which learning goals they should sup- port. We also reiterate, at virtually every faculty meeting, that assurance of learning is about evaluating degree programs, not faculty or students. Finally, we make sure that faculty drive the activities that close the loop. Suggestions about how to improve student performance, or maintain good performance, come from the faculty either in collegewide meetings or in smaller, infor- mal groups. Individual professors are free to adopt sugges- tions or not, but the involvement and enthusiasm of their colleagues is contagious. Because of the way we have imple- mented assessment strategies, some of the faculty who were most concerned about academic freedom have become our strongest proponents of assurance of learning. All Aboard There are many ways business schools can structure their assurance of learning programs. While we believe our system can work for other schools, every situation is unique and every school will need to find its own strategies. But we're convinced that, no matter what system is implemented, fac- ulty are more likely to get on board when they perceive that assurance of learning is beneficial to them and won't cost them a lot of time or effort. We believe that the five approaches we adopted can bol- ster any assurance of learning program that's flagging for lack of participation. Top-level support, faculty champions, incremental improvements, precisely structured systems, and constant communication will spark enthusiasm for assurance of learning among faculty across the business school. ■ z Carol W. DeMoranville is professor of marketing and Director of College of Business Assessment and Accreditation at Bryant University in Smithfield, Rhode Island. 30 BizEd MARCH/APRIL 2010