This paper describes the application of a Multi-Tiered Model of Assessment to a costume history course. A review of assessment literature is followed by a description of the three-tiered model. Elements of the model applied to a general education costume history course include peer review, teaching journal analysis, locally developed and national measures of student perceptions, and measures of student learning outcomes. Strategies for course redesign based on the data are discussed.
Angelo, T. A. (1999, May). Doing assessment as if learning matters mostAAHE Bulletin. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
2.
Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the academic community. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
3.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: Association of American College and Universities.
4.
Banta, T. W., Lund, J. P., Black, K. E., and Oblander, F. W. (1996). Assessment in practice: putting principles to work on college campuses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
5.
Cross, K. P., and Angelo, T. A. (1988). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
6.
Donald, J. G. (2002). Learning to think: Disciplinary perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
7.
Erwin, T. D. (1991). Assessing student learning and development: A guide to the principles, goals, and methods of determining college outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
8.
Ewell, P. T. (1985). Some implications for practice. In P. T. Ewell (Ed.), Assessing educational outcomes: New directions for institutional research (pp.111-119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
9.
Ewell, P. T. (1997). Identifying indicators of curricular quality. In G. Gaff, and J. Ratcliff (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum (pp. 608-627). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
10.
The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (2002). Addendum to the handbook of accreditation (2nd ed.). Chicago IL: The Higher Learning Commission.
11.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. The College Student Report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.
12.
Lopez, C. L. (1999). A decade of assessing student learning: What we have learned; what's next?Chicago: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Institutions of Higher Education.
13.
Lopez, C. L. (2000). Assessing student learning: Using the commission's `levels of implementation.' Paper presented at the 105th annual meeting of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, Chicago.
14.
National Governors' Association. (1986). Time for results: The Governors' 1991 report on education. Washington, DC.
15.
National Institute of Education, Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16.
The National Research Council. (2002). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
Palomba, C. A., and Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
18.
Stonewater, J. K. (2002). A Multi-Tiered Model of Assessment. Oxford, OH: Miami University.
19.
Tortora, P., & Eubank, K. (1998). A survey of historic costume (3rd ed.). New York: Fairchild Publications.
