First, as Dave pointed out, “measure” is a loaded term. When he first asked the question, I typed, “Yes, but . . .” My initial perspective on “measure” was much fuzzier, and much more inclined to assessment thinking than what he later defined much more precisely and much more restrictively. 

Second, in order to respond, I first need to stake out the territory that “measure” is different from “assess,” especially relative to the hard binaries that Dave was offering (administrators/educators). Again, if we want to use measure in those restrictive (administrative?) terms, we are not talking about assessment, even if many of the administrators on my campus may want to. 

Third, part of my response grows out of the planning I’m doing for a paper on our new Professional Writing Minor that I’m presenting as part of a panel with two colleagues at SWTXPC on February 16. Here’s the summary of my part of the panel: “Speaker 3 will describe our response, evaluation, and long-term assessment practices. Our program  uses big data thinking and collaborative practices for constructing transparent and seamless projects, activities, and tools. This comprehensive approach to assessment design will use learning analytics, innovative rubrics, and adaptive technologies to create a variety of databases and corpora  that can be examined within and across sections and courses. The primary goals of this approach are to increase self-directed and non-formal online learning activities and to provide, at the same time, a robust support structure for all teachers in the program.”

So, I’m going to use the term, but I’m going to use it much more loosely than Dave (and often interchangeably with assessment). And I’m going to return to my original answer: Yes, but . . . From my perspective, our primary responsibility as teachers (and administrators) is to “measure” learning. But we must do this purposefully, reflectively, and inclusively.

First, there is no point in measuring learning or doing any form of assessment if we don’t do it purposefully, for some reason that leads to better practices and better outcomes for our students. Too often on too many campuses across the country, departments create these really elaborate assessment tools, measure all kinds of activities, and then just put the numbers in a report that they ship off to some administrator. I’m in an English department and make my literature colleagues crazy when I tell them that if we are only doing assessment to create a report, then we should just make the numbers up because it doesn’t matter. In other words, if we aren’t going to use our assessment tools to improve our practices, then we might as well make ourselves look really good. Assessment should be done for some reason: better teaching, better learning, higher standards, whatever. Again, it doesn’t matter what that reason is as long as we’re transparent and aboveboard about our purposes, and that we are actually doing it for stated purposes.

As you can probably guess, this leads to my second point. We must “measure” as a means to reflect on our practices, review those practices, and revise those practices. This can be the practices/activities of students, teachers, or administrators. We can measure all kinds of things, and we can use numbers (even Dave’s 82%) to tell us if we are working effectively and/or efficiently. Once we establish a baseline, we can measure for consistency and coherence, then reflect on those practices to figure out how or why we got those numbers. We can either improve those practices, maintain those practices, or discard those practices. The numbers, the measurements, should only be used to help us better understand the practices in our particular course/program/department.

Finally, any “measuring” must include all stakeholders. For some, the term “stakeholders” has become passe, but I have a certain affinity for it. Mostly because I think first and foremost from a programmatic perspective. I believe that if you have a multi-section course, then a student in section 1 should have basically the same experience as a student in section 2. If you don’t have coherence and consistency between sections and over time, then there’s no reason for doing assessment. There really is nothing to measure. Education becomes an individual endeavor, the sole responsibility of each teacher in each section. Sorry. I won’t accept that. Teachers can be individuals, but we all operate within larger structures, and we all need to establish quality across the board, not one course at a time. So if we are going to assess programmatically, then I want students to be part of the assessment process. This means at both the course and program levels. Likewise, if we have a multi-section course, or a larger program, then anyone who teaches that course, or in that program, should have an opportunity to participate in the larger assessment discussions. On my campus, this means graduate students, part-time instructors, adjuncts, faculty, and administrators. Of course, if a program doesn’t promote all of the values and principles of sharing and networking that we’ve been discussing in the ET MOOC, then the program will languish, and measuring, again, will be of little value.  

In conclusion, we can “measure” learning, but we have to be transparent about what we are measuring and why we are measuring. I believe that our primary responsibility is to measure learning, but not as a gatekeeping method or as a means of exclusion. We measure learning to promote independent, lifelong learning practices and to better understand how we learn, where we can learn more effectively, and why our learning is important.

While there may be some holes in my logic and in my description, I believe wholeheartedly in open-source, open-access, and open-learning. “Measuring” learning can help us understand these concepts more fully.