By JOSIE RUSH

As a writing instructor, I was using experiential learning before I really knew what it was. After all, if someone wants to improve their writing, they will eventually need to, well, write. They’ll also need to reflect on what they wrote and how they wrote, and they’ll need to consider what worked for their context and what didn’t. If, after a semester of writing and reflecting, students leave my course with a better sense of how to approach writing tasks and more confidence in their ability to navigate the written word, I like to think of their time in class as successful. However, things get trickier when I ask myself how to measure something like “increased confidence in approaching writing tasks” across the term. Evidence for something like that can’t come from a multiple-choice test, and students often start the course at very different places in terms of how they think of themselves as writers, so how can I ensure I’m accurately assessing this important outcome? 

I’ve come to think of this sort of concern as a characteristic of experiential learning more generally. Experiential learning requires planning, frequently depends on collaboration and circumstances outside of an instructor’s control, and rarely unfolds in the same manner for any two students. The variability is part of what makes experiential learning powerful, but it’s also what makes it difficult to evaluate. Of all the instructional challenges experiential learning raises, assessment is among the most persistent. 

Assessing what students make (product) often feels more familiar and comfortable to instructors than assessing how they work (process) or their metacognitive development (learning disposition). In my own writing classes, I find it much more intuitive to articulate characteristics of a successful final portfolio for students than to clearly frame what their affective and metacognitive journeys should look like as they develop as writers throughout the semester. Things get even messier in experiential learning when we consider the caution of Fu et al. (2025) that, “an emphasis on process [...] means students may emerge from the same experience having learned different things” (p. 9). In my own teaching context, that might look like one student having embraced generative peer reviewing strategies after an essay, while another pinpoints effective methods for iterating an essay’s controlling idea. Both have added to their writing toolkit and cultivated aspects of their writerly identities, but what do their different paths mean for assessment? 

Before offering some potential ways forward, I want to be careful not to overstate the uniqueness of the challenges associated with assessing process and disposition outcomes. While it’s certainly true that I can’t imagine all of the ways students might demonstrate growth as writers throughout the semester, I also can’t accurately imagine all the ways a finished essay might excel or miss the mark. Assessment, like experiential learning, is always at least a little messy. 

So, my unorthodox advice as instructors begin to consider how to assess experiential learning in their own courses is to first make peace with the innate imperfections of assessment and then consider where flexibility and student involvement might alleviate some of these challenges.

Start by imagining the end of the term and picture a student who has gotten a lot out of your course. What would you notice about this student, during the experience and after? When CTL consultants pose this question to instructors utilizing experiential learning, the outcomes they describe often involve a mix of product, process, and learning disposition outcomes. Take a few minutes to name some outcomes and then sort them into the above three categories. There are also opportunities here to lean into the individualized nature of experiential learning and invite students to share what they would like to accomplish by the end of the course, which can increase motivation and clarity. If, for instance, a student in an engineering class shares that they would like to feel a sense of belonging in the field at the conclusion of the semester, an instructor might ask them to more specifically share what that looks like for them: Would their feeling of belonging increase by moving beyond merely following directions on a team to contributing ideas, or perhaps by embracing a “failed” prototype as a source of information for iteration, rather than solely as a sign they did something wrong? 

For the process and learning disposition outcomes, ask yourself how you would know a student was achieving them: What would you hear, see, or read? When you consider what could work as evidence of students’ learning, remember that there’s a wide array of options. You might look at what students make during the process, not just at the end, like drafts or prototypes; you could consider something you or a peer observe through an in-process check-in or documentation of collaboration; or you might think about ways that you or a student could capture a moment through a photo, short video, or audio log. Not every outcome requires “perfect” evidence. This is where making peace with imperfection becomes actionable. To determine if evidence is “good enough,” ask yourself four questions: Is the evidence collectible? Does the evidence tell you something meaningful about a student’s learning? Can you process what you collect across all of your students? Can you describe the meaning of the evidence to someone outside of your course? Consider, too, when it’s appropriate to ask students to collect this evidence, a move that gives students more agency in learning and makes assessing evidence in larger classes more manageable.

Many instructors make use of reflections alongside other types of evidence as a way to track process and disposition outcomes in experiential learning. After all, if we want to know how students view themselves as learners throughout the course, or where in their process theynavigated a challenge, we need to hear from the students. Boud et al. (2013) suggest carefully structuring reflective prompts to ask students to analyze, synthesize, and connect reflections to course concepts. Thoughtfully designed reflective prompts accomplish several things: They help demystify aspects of the curriculum for students (what’s the point of the activities? How do parts of the course connect to the learning outcomes?), and they guide students through metacognitive processes, rather than leaving room for students to simply write, “I had fun and learned a lot.” 

As instructors, we can take our cues for other types of experiential learning assessments from the above advice about effective reflective prompts. Be explicit about the desired outcome for an activity – let students know the purpose of what they’re asked to do. Balance structure and flexibility – including when students might choose or shape the evidence – when designing assessments to capture evidence of students’ learning dispositions and processes: What sort of activities create room for students to demonstrate learning in ways that are collectible, meaningful, processable and explainable?

None of this makes assessing experiential learning tidy, and it isn’t meant to. When I think back to the question of how I would know a student had grown more confident as a writer, I don’t have a single measure in mind. Instead, I have a clearer sense of what I’m looking for, a handful of kinds of evidence that might show it, and students who have helped define what growth means for them. It’s all imperfect, but it’s also workable. Regardless of discipline, you can begin small. Name one process or disposition outcome, decide what you would hear, see, or read if a student were achieving it, and consider where students might help choose or gather evidence. Ask whether what you’ve collected is good enough to tell you something meaningful about students’ learning. 

Josie Rush is a senior teaching consultant at the University Center for Teaching and Learning.

References

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1993). Using experience for learning. McGraw-Hill Education

Fu, J., Hutson, B., Thierer, K., Zhang, X., & Taylor, J. (2025). Experiential learning assessment: A dive into the literature. Intersection: A Journal at the Intersection of Assessment and Learning, 6(1), 3-20. https://aalhe.scholasticahq.com/article/131785.pdf