different perspectives on the assessment mandate: the results of a survey
DESCRIPTION
Different Perspectives on the Assessment Mandate: The Results of a Survey . Neil Pagano Associate Dean Columbia College Chicago [email protected]. 139 th Belmont Stakes. Question Posted to Assess Listserv (2004). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Different Perspectives on the Assessment Mandate: The
Results of a Survey
Neil PaganoAssociate Dean
Columbia College [email protected]
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
139th Belmont StakesBelmont S. (G1) 1 1/ 2 Miles | Open | 3 Year Olds Stakes | Purse: $1,000,000
Prg. # Horse Jockey Trainer Wt. ML 1 Imawildandcrazyguy Guidry M Kaplan William A 126 20-1 2 Tiago Smith M E Shirreffs J ohn 126 10-1 3 Curlin Albarado R J Asmussen Steven M 126 6-5 4 C P West Prado E S Zito Nicholas P 126 12-1 5 Slew's Tizzy Bejarano R Fox Gregory 126 20-1 6 Hard Spun Gomez G K J ones J Larry 126 5-2 7 Rags to Riches Velazquez J R Pletcher Todd A 121 3-1
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Question Posted to Assess Listserv (2004)
“Is there any evidence that a higher education assessment/evaluation of student learning program has indeed produced positive (or negative) change in the quantity or quality of what students actually learn. There seems to be a lot of anecdotal information about how assessment/evaluation programs were created and implemented, but not any actual empirical support. Considering the logistical and personnel-related ramifications of such an undertaking, any success in getting a program off the ground and moving is certainly noteworthy and to be commended. However, I am trying to prepare a report on the actual effectiveness of assessment/evaluation programs. Is there a program that is doing what it is purported to do: improving student learning. If so, is there any (weak, so-so, or solid) empirical evidence to this effect? Any good studies?”
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Two Responses:
• “Assessment done well is effective and assessment done poorly is not effective.”
• Three possible explanations:1) Assessment is still relatively new2) Assessment is “decentralized or course-
embedded”3) “Faculty already do a darned good job
teaching, and their assessment results simply document that.”
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Prior Research
• Peterson, Einarson, Augustine, & Vaughan (1999), Institutional Support for Student Assessment: Methodology and Results of a National Survey
• Survey - ISSA: Purposes, Methods, Structures, & Impact– Preparing for self-study or accreditation (1st in
importance)– Improving the achievement of undergraduate
students (2nd in importance)
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Conclusions… “Institutions do not routinely use student
assessment data in internal decision-making or monitor its impact on important areas of institutional and student performance. Given the extensive claims made for the value of students’ assessment and the substantial human and financial resources invested in student assessment activities, institutions need to give greater priority to examining how student assessment data is used, and how it impacts the performance of individual students and the institution itself.”
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Follow-Up Study
• Peterson, Vaughan, & Perorazio (2002). Student Assessment in Higher Education: A Comparative Study of Seven Institutions– “Exemplary” institutions for “benchmarking”– Ten domains, including Initiating Conditions,
Institutional Approach, Culture, and Utilization– Only one institution (Wake Forest University)
used assessment results “extensively”
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Research Questions
1. What are the reasons for undertaking assessment?
2. What assessment methods are used and which are valued?
3. How effective have these assessment efforts been?
4. What variables (institution-type, control, respondent position) impact responses to Qs 1, 2 & 3?
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Survey: Four Sections
I. PurposeII. Methods UsedIII. Methods ValuedIV. Effect of Assessment Efforts
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Survey Distribution and Responses
• Two Listservs: Assess (University of Kentucky) and Communities of Practice
• Snowball Sampling for Further Coverage• 331 Total Completes
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Limitations
• Sampling Method not Random– Purposive method likely to recruit the “choir”
• Mixture of Respondents– Some from same institution
• Basic Statistical Analysis – ANOVA, T-Tests, and Chi Square
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Survey Respondents by Institutional Type and Position
Institution Type Position Assoc. Bacc. Ma/Doc Total Faculty 51 45 61 157 Assessment Leader
34 28 63 125
Administrator 21 5 23 49 Total 106 78 147 331
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Purposes of Assessment by Institution Type - ANOVA
Importance for Conducting Assessment at Institution Purpose
All
n = 331
Associate
n =106
Baccalau- reate n = 78
Masters/ Doctoral n = 147
F
p
1. Preparing for accreditation or responding to the requirements of accrediting association
3.72 (.55)
3.72 (.55)
3.60 (.71)
3.78 (.45)
2.505 .083
2. Meeting state reporting requirements
2.96 (1.03)
3.40 (.74)
2.42 (1.10)
2.93 (1.04)
22.620 .000
3. Guiding internal resource allocation decisions
2.80 (.98)
3.01 (.92)
2.57 (.95)
2.78 (.89)
5.157 .006
4. Guiding undergraduate academic program improvement
3.32 (.83)
3.38 (.79)
3.29 (.89)
3.29 (.82)
.450 .638
5. Demonstrating student achievement
3.33 (.79)
3.45 (.73)
3.26 (.86)
3.29 (.80)
1.631 .197
6. Improving faculty instructional performance
2.88 (.94)
3.03 (.99)
2.68 (.97)
2.87 (.87)
3.135 .045
a 1 = no importance; 2 = minor importance; 3 = moderate importance; 4 = very important . Standard deviations shown in parentheses.
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Purposes of Assessment by Position - ANOVA
Importance for Conducting Assessment at Institution Purpose
All
n =331
Faculty n = 157
Assessment Leader n =125
Admini-strator
49
F
p 1. Preparing for
accreditation or responding to the requirements of accrediting association
3.72 (.55)
3.75 (.56)
3.66 (.55)
3.73 (.53)
.902 .407
2. Meeting state reporting requirements
2.96 (1.03)
3.06 (1.05)
2.73 (1.04)
3.22 (.82)
5.756 .003
3. Guiding internal resource allocation decisions
2.80 (.93)
2.84 (.96)
2.63 (.91)
3.10 (.77)
4.937 .008
4. Guiding undergraduate academic program improvement
3.32 (.83)
3.23 (.84)
3.35 (.82)
3.53 (.77)
2.691 .069
5. Demonstrating student achievement
3.33 (.79)
3.29 (.79)
3.30 (.85)
3.57 (.61)
2.591 .076
6. Improving faculty instructional performance
2.88 (.94)
2.87 (.97)
2.85 (.93)
2.96 (.89)
2.47 .781
a 1 = no importance; 2 = minor importance; 3 = moderate importance; 4 = very important Standard deviations shown in parentheses.
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Purposes: A Comparison to the ISSA
Administrator (n = 49) ISSA (n = 1379) Purpose Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. t 1. Preparing for accreditation or
responding to the requirements of accrediting association
3.73
.53 3.86 .65 -.68
2. Meeting state reporting requirements
3.22
.82 2.89 1.18 2.70*
3. Guiding internal resource allocation decisions
3.10
.77 2.71 .91 3.48*
4. Guiding undergraduate academic program improvement
3.53
.77 3.43 .72 .90
5. Demonstrating student achievement
3.57
.61 3.48 .71 1.10
6. Improving faculty instructional performance
2.96
.89 3.02 .82 -.46
a 1 = no importance; 2 = minor importance; 3 = moderate importance; 4 = very important b The item on the ISSA was slightly different: “Preparing institutional self-study for accreditation.” All other items on the survey were identical to the ISSA.
*p < .01
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Assessment Methods Used
Scale: 1 = not used; 2 = used in some areas; 3 = used in most areas;
4 = used in all areas
Assessment Method (N = 331) MeanStudent Surveys 2.74Student Papers 2.57Student Projects 2.51Alumni Surveys 2.31Capstone Courses 2.24Anecdotal Evidence 2.23Departmental Exams 2.22Student Portfolios 2.05Commercial Exams 1.90Student Interviews and Focus Groups 1.82Employer Surveys 1.75Transcript Analysis 1.72
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Assessment Methods Used by Institution - ANOVA
Extent of Method Used Method
All
n = 331
Associate
n =106
Baccalau- reate n = 78
Masters/ Doctoral n = 147
F
p Student Surveys
2.74 (.84)
2.71 (.91)
2.82 (.85)
2.72 (.79)
.48 .619
Alumni Surveys
2.31 (.80)
2.10 (.78)
2.35 (.84)
2.43 (.77)
5.37 .005
Departmental Exams
2.22 (.86)
2.22 (.93)
2.09 (.81)
2.28 (.84)
1.17 .309
Student Papers
2.57 (.80)
2.42 (.93)
2.79 (.75)
2.57 (.82)
4.82 .009
Student Projects
2.51 (.77)
2.37 (.79)
2.63 (.75)
2.55 (.76)
2.81 .061
Student Portfolios
2.05 (.58)
1.89 (.52)
2.07 (.55)
2.15 (.62)
5.94 .003
a1 = not used; 2 = used in some areas; 3 = used in most areas; 4 = used in all areas Standard deviations shown in parentheses.
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Assessment Methods Used by Institution – ANOVA (cont.)
Extent of Method Used Method
All
n = 331
Associate
n =106
Baccalau- reate n = 78
Masters/ Doctoral n = 147
F
p Capstone Courses
2.24 (.87)
1.78 (.75)
2.66 (.90)
2.36 (.77)
29.39 .000
Transcript Analysis
1.72 (.89)
1.78 (.95)
1.61 (.77)
1.73 (.90)
.862 .423
Commercial Exams
1.90 (.77)
1.85 (.83)
1.86 (.72)
1.95 (.74)
.594 .553
Employer Surveys
1.75 (.61)
1.80 (.69)
1.56 (.62)
1.82 (.52)
5.17 .006
Student Interviews/ Focus Groups
1.82 (.54)
1.64 (.52)
1.88 (.54)
1.91 (.53)
8.61 .000
Anecdotal Evidence 2.23 (.94)
2.18 (.95)
2.33 (1.02)
2.22 (.88)
.609 .545
1 = not used; 2 = used in some areas; 3 = used in most areas; 4 = used in all areas Standard deviations shown in parentheses.
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Assessment Methods ValuedMethod (n = 330) Yes (%) No (%)Student Projects 78.80 21.20Student Portfolios 77.00 23.00Student Surveys 74.80 25.20Student Papers 73.90 26.10Capstone Courses 73.30 26.70Alumni Surveys 70.30 29.70Student Int/Focus Groups 66.70 33.30Departmental Exams 60.60 39.40Employer Surveys 52.40 47.60Commercial Exams 42.40 57.60Anecdotal Evidence 34.80 65.20Transcript Analysis 26.70 73.30
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Methods Used vs. Methods Valued
1 Student Surveys 1 Student Projects (3)2 Student Papers 2 Student Portfolios (8)3 Student Projects 3 Student Surveys (1)4 Alumni Surveys 4 Student Papers (2)5 Capstone Courses 5 Capstone Courses (5)6 Anecdotal Evidence 6 Alumni Surveys (4)7 Departmental Exams 7 Stu. Int./Foc. Groups (10)8 Student Portfolios 8 Departmental Exams (7)9 Commercial Exams 9 Employer Surveys (11)
10 Stu Int./Focus Groups 10 Commercial Exams (9)11 Employer Surveys 11 Anecdotal Evidence (6)12 Transcript Analysis 12 Transcript Analysis (12)
Methods Used Methods Valued
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Methods Valued by Institution Type - Chi Square
• Associate Institutions placed less value in:– Alumni Surveys (p = .008)– Capstone Courses (p = .002)
• Baccalaureate Institutions placed less value in Employer Surveys (p = .008)
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Methods Valued by Position – Chi Square
• Faculty placed relatively less value in 9 of the 12 Methods. Statistically significant differences in:– Departmental Exams (p = .006)– Student Papers (p = .001)– Student Portfolios (p = .016)– Capstone Courses (p < .000)– Commercial Exams (p = .046)– Student Interviews/Focus Groups (p = .023)
• Faculty placed more value in Anecdotal Evidence (p = .132)
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Perspectives on the Effects of the Assessment Mandate:
4 Survey Items
1. Our institutional assessment efforts have been effective.
2. Our institutional assessment efforts have identified areas where we need to make curricular/programmatic changes.
3. We have made curricular/programmatic changes as a result of our assessment.
4. It is important that every institution have an assessment plan.
• No differences in Institutional Type or Control
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Perspective on Effect of Assessment: by Position - ANOVA Perspective
All
n = 328
Faculty n =156
Assessment Leader n = 123
Admini- strator n = 49
F
p
1. Assessment efforts have been effective.
3.31 (.99)
3.13 (1.04)
3.43 (.91)
3.61 (.91)
5.965 .003
2. Assessment efforts have identified areas for curricular/programmatic changes.
3.66 (.92)
3.50 (1.01)
3.80 (.81)
3.79 (.82)
4.303 .014
3. We have made curricular/programmatic changes.
3.59 (.99)
3.44 (1.06)
3.69 (.90)
3.80 (.93)
3.415 .034
4. It is important that every institution have an assessment plan.
4.35 (.83)
4.22 (.87)
4.53 (.74)
4.33 (.87)
4.922 .008
a 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree. Standard deviations shown in parentheses.
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Closing Comments
• Institution Type Matters– Different institutions have different priorities
and purposes• Position Matters
– Faculty, Assessment Leaders and Administrators differ on purposes, methods valued, and the ultimate effect of the mandate
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Closing Comments
• Accreditation is an Important Lever– Effects of revised expectations
• Need to Know More– US Higher Ed Post-Spellings Commission– What is “Assessment?”
2007 NASPA Assessment & Retention Conference
Different Perspectives on the Assessment Mandate: The
Results of a Survey
Neil PaganoAssociate Dean
Columbia College [email protected]