Conceptual Framework
Understanding the Domains and Defining the Dimensions
Understanding the Domains
The conceptual framework used in this tool kit consists of eight domains. Seven emerged from the literature review and the national institutional survey results from Phases I and II. An additional domain “Integration with Academic Management and Educational Improvement,” which represents how student assessment is linked to these two important institutional processes was added during the Phase III case studies. The eight domains:
- Institutional Context
- External Influences
- Institutional Approaches
- Institution-wide Strategy, Support and Leadership
- Assessment Management Policies and Practices
- Integration with Academic Management and Educational Improvement
- Institutional Culture
- Uses and Impacts of Student Assessment Data
Uses and Impacts
The Uses and Impacts of Student Assessment Data domain was treated
as the dependent variable in our research and identifies how the institution
uses student assessment data in making academic decisions and how it impacts
institutional behavior or performance. Uses in this domain examines whether
student assessment information is used to make academic decisions in two
areas: educational and faculty decisions. Educational decisions include
those in areas such as academic program planning, curriculum, academic
support services, and academic resource allocation. Faculty decisions
measured the extent to which assessment information is used in institutional
decisions regarding faculty promotion, tenure, and salary increases or
rewards.
The impact of student assessment was examined in three basic areas: student and faculty related impacts and external indicators. Four measures of the impact of student assessment on students were used: student satisfaction, retention and graduation rates, grade performance, and achievement on external examinations. Four items served as measures of the impact of student assessment on faculty: campus discussions of undergraduate education, faculty satisfaction, interest in teaching, and changes in teaching methods. Finally, seven items measured the impact of student assessment information on external indicators of institutional performance: student applications or acceptance rates, allocation of state funding, private fund-raising results, success on grant applications, regional accreditation evaluation, communications with external constituents, and institutional reputation. (See description of the dimensions (variables) for this domain.)
jump to Defining the Dimensions
Institutional Context
The Institutional Context domain includes dimensions or characteristics
about each institution, which the literature suggested influences the
nature of student assessment on campus. This includes things such as size,
control (public or private), and Carnegie classification. Analysis of
the Phase II National Institutional Survey Data confirmed substantial
differences among institutions on these dimensions. When the case study
institutions were chosen for Phase III, they were selected to represent
variations on these dimensions. (See description of the dimensions (variables)
for this domain.)
External Influences
The domain of External Influences was included in the model to assess
the extent to which various external groups influenced each institution
at the time the institution initiated its assessment efforts. External
groups included state governments, accreditation agencies, professional
associations, foundations or donors, and business or employer groups.
State influence was reflected in state initiatives, state approaches,
state plans, state reporting requirements, state review methods, state
review criteria, or other state purposes related to student assessment.
Accrediting influence was reflected in their purposes, their types of
requirements, or their reporting and follow-up activities. (See description
of the dimensions (variables) for this domain.)
Institutional Approaches to Student Assessment
The Institutional Approach to Student Assessment domain is used to identify
several areas that describe the nature of the institution’s approach
to student assessment. This includes the content or type of student assessment
measures the institutions use, the extent or comprehensiveness with which
they collect data on a variety of types of students’ cognitive, affective,
and post-college development or performance, and the timing of student
assessment measures used by the institution. Three variables measured
methods of student assessment — the number of instruments (comprehensive
tests or inventories) used, use of integrative or performance-based assessment
methods (student-centered methods), and use of methods involving external
constituencies (external methods). The analysis of student assessment
was measured by the type and number of studies of student performance
that were conducted, and the number of levels at which assessment data
is aggregated and reported (number of reports). (See description of the
dimensions (variables) for this domain.)
Institutional-wide Strategy, Support,
and Leadership for Student Assessment
The Institution-wide Strategy, Support, and Leadership for Student Assessment
domain includes dimensions that examine broad areas of institutional commitment
to student assessment. Institution-wide Strategy focused on the emphasis
an institution gave to undergraduate education and to assessment in its
mission statement, whether or not it had a formal assessment plan or policy,
and the type of organizational structure for the student assessment effort.
Institution-wide Support for Student Assessment includes dimensions related
to the amount and type of administrative and faculty support for the institution’s
student assessment effort and the administrative and governance activities
used to promote student assessment at the institution. Institution-wide
Leadership for Student Assessment includes the breadth and depth of the
leadership support among the administration and the faculty. A final dimension
examined whether an institution has formally or informally evaluated its
assessment process (conducted evaluation). (See description of the dimensions
(variables) for this domain.)
Assessment Management Policies and Practices
The domain of Assessment Management Policies and Practices is included
to assess whether nine areas of institutional management activities, that
are designed to promote student assessment, exist through the use of formal
policies and/or practices. The nine areas examined are: 1) whether student
assessment data are incorporated in academic planning and review processes,
2) use of student assessment data for budget decisions, 3) information
system for student assessment, 4) breadth of internal access to student
assessment information on individual students, 5) breadth of distribution
of student assessment reports, 6) policies promoting student involvement
in student assessment, 7) professional development policies on student
assessment for faculty and academic administrators, 8) professional development
policies on student assessment for student affairs personnel, and 9) policies
linking faculty evaluation and rewards to student assessment involvement.
(See description of the dimensions (variables) for this domain.)
Integration with Academic Management and Educational
Improvement
The domain for Integration with Academic Management and Educational Improvement
was not included in the Phase I and II conceptual framework but was added
as a result of the case studies. This domain examines the relationship
of an institution’s student assessment efforts and information collected
within these two processes or activities. Academic management includes
institutional processes such as strategic planning, academic program review,
budgeting, and quality improvement. The relationship between student assessment
efforts and educational improvement examines whether student assessment
is a central fixture of institutional offices or processes designed for
instructional and teaching improvement, curricular and program design,
learning innovation, and faculty/professional development. (See description
of the dimensions (variables) for this domain.)
Institutional Culture and Climate for Student
Assessment
The final domain, Institutional Culture and Climate for Student Assessment,
is included to broadly reflect overall patterns of institutional approaches
to, support for and use of student assessment as well as the identifiable
attitudes, rituals, and driving forces or beliefs behind the institution’s
student assessment efforts. The focus and strength of the institution’s
culture for student assessment is, not only, a reflection of an institution's
involvement with student assessment, but also a useful indicator of their
commitment to use it for institutional, student, and academic improvement.
(See description of the dimensions (variables) for this domain.)
Defining the Dimensions
Each of the eight domains identified in the framework for this tool kit
consist of several dimensions (variables) that operationalize the various
organizational and administrative activities or characteristics within
each of these domains. Some of these dimensions consist of a single activity
or characteristic but most include several. Most users of this tool kit
will probably want to review the activities or characteristics individually
by item. However, drawing on a factor analysis of data collected in the
national survey (Phase II), it was clear that many of these institutional
activities or characteristics were closely related. Thus, several multi-item
dimensions of similar activities or characteristics were created.
Table 2 characterizes the dimensions (variables) by domain. The items
representing institutional activities or characteristics are primarily
from the Inventory of Institutional Support for Student Assessment (ISSA)
survey instrument. Other sources noted include the 1995 Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) and the Assessment of Teaching and Learning
for Improvement and Public Accountability: State Governing, Coordinating
Board and Regional Accreditation Association Policies and Practices (SAS)(Cole,
Nettles, & Sharp, 1997). Within each domain, the dimensions are classified
based on the type, source, definition, and scale where:
Type - refers to its categorization as a single item, additive
index, or factorially derived score.
Source - refers the user to the section, subsection, and items
numbers in the national survey (ISSA) used to identify or derive the item,
index, or factor.
Definition - details the activities or characteristics captured
by the item, index, or factor, and
Scale - identifies the possible range of responses for the item,
or items in the index or factor.
Where the dimension is the result of a factor analysis, the Cronbach
Alpha signifying the strength of the factor is shown.
______________________________________________________________________________
|
Table 2. Characteristics of Domains and Dimensions. |
|
Domains and Dimensions |
Dimension Type, Source, Definition and Scale |
|
|
|
Ten item factorially-derived scale. (V A 1-5, 8-12) Reflects the influence of student assessment information in educational decisions: revision of undergraduate academic mission or goals; designing or reorganizing academic programs or majors; designing or reorganizing student affairs units; allocating resources to academic units; modifying student assessment plans, policies, or processes; revising or modifying general education curriculum; creating or modifying student out-of-class learning experiences; creating or modifying distance learning initiatives; modifying instructional or teaching methods; modifying student academic support services (1 = no action or influence known; 2 = action taken, data not influential; 3 = action taken, data somewhat influential; 4 = action taken, data very influential), Cronbach alpha = .83. |
|
Two item factorially-derived scale. (V A 6-7) Reflects the influence of student assessment information in faculty decisions: deciding faculty promotion and tenure; deciding faculty salary increases or rewards (1 = no action or influence known; 2 = action taken, data not influential; 3 = action taken, data somewhat influential; 4 = action taken, data very influential). Cronbach alpha = .79. |
|
Four item factorially-derived scale. (V B 1-4) Reflects student assessment impacts on faculty: affected campus discussions of undergraduate education; contributed to faculty satisfaction; contributed to faculty interest in teaching; led to changes in teaching methods used (1 = not monitored, do not know; 2 = monitored, negative impact; 3 = monitored, no known impact; 4 = monitored, positive impact). Cronbach alpha = .79. |
|
Four item factorially-derived scale. (V B 5-8) Reflects student assessment impacts on students: contributed to student satisfaction; affected student retention or graduation rates; affected student grade performance; affected student achievement on external examinations (1 = not monitored, do not know; 2 = monitored, negative impact; 3 = monitored, no known impact; 4 = monitored, positive impact). Cronbach alpha = .82. |
|
Seven item factorially-derived scale. (V B 9-15) Reflects student assessment impacts on external constituents: affected student applications or acceptance rates; affected allocation or share of state funding; affected evaluation from regional accrediting agency; affected private fund-raising results; affected success on grant applications; affected communications with external constituents; affected institutional reputation or image (1 = not monitored, do not know; 2 = monitored, negative impact; 3 = monitored, no known impact; 4 = monitored, positive impact). Cronbach alpha = .82. |
|
|
|
Single item. Reflects number of students enrolled in institution. Data from IPEDS. |
|
Single item. (1 = public; 0 = private). Data from IPEDS. |
|
Four dummy-coded single items. Reflects the institution’s carnegie type. (Associate of Arts, Baccalaureate, Doctoral, and Research. Comprehensive institutions was the omitted category.) Data from IPEDS. |
External Influences |
|
|
Single item. Reflects whether the state’s assessment initiatives were guided by legislative or other means (1 = no state plan; 2 = state policy; 3 = state statute; 4 = combination of policy & statute). Data from SAS. |
|
Single item. Reflects whether states mandate common indicators and outcomes (1 = no indicators or outcomes; 2 = institutional specific; 3 = common for some; 4 = common for all). Data from SAS. |
|
Five dummy-coded single items. Reflects the institution’s regional accreditation association membership (Middle States; North Central; New England; Southern; Western. Northwest region was the omitted region). Data from IPEDS. |
|
Single item. (III A 1) Reflects how state plan for student assessment was primarily developed (1 = state; 2 = joint consultation between state and institution; 3 = no state plan or requirement). |
|
Four single items. (III A 2 a-d) Reflect the influence of state requirements on the institutions assessment activities: a = important reason to initiate student assessment; b = increased institution’s involvement in assessment; c = have not been a factor in assessment activities; d = have been negative influence on assessment activities (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Four single items. (III A 3 a-d) Reflect the state’s reporting requirements: a = evidence that assessment plan is in place; b = measurement of state mandated indicators; c = use of institutionally devised indicators; d = evidence of institutional use of assessment information (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Four single items. (III A 4 a-d) Reflect the method used by state to review the institutions assessment activities: a = reviewed by state officials; b = reviewed using external reviewers; c = required institutional self-review; d = no review occurred (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Five single items. (III A 5 a-e) Reflect the processes included in the state review of the institutions assessment activities: a = review of institutions process itself; b = compare student performance record with past record; c = compare student performance record with peer institutions; d = compare student performance record with other in state; e = other (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Four single items. (III B 2 a-d) Reflect the influence of regional accreditation agency requirements on the institutions assessment activities: a = important reason to initiate student assessment; b = increased institution’s involvement in assessment; c = have not been a factor in assessment activities; d = have been negative influence on assessment activities (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Five single items. (III B 3 a-e) Reflect the regional accreditation agency reporting requirements: a = evidence that assessment plan is in place; b = intended uses of assessment information; c = results of assessment; d = evidence of actual institutional use of assessment information; e = unfamiliar with regional accreditation requirements (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Five single items. (III C 1 a-e) Reflect the sources of support received to improve student assessment practices: a = FIPSE; b = other federal agencies; c = state incentive program; d = private foundation or corporate source; e = no known external grants (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Four single items. (III C 2 a-d) Reflect the use of services offered by each of the following type of postsecondary organization: a = professional associations; b = regional accrediting association; c = state-level agency; d = consortium of institutions. Respondants could choose from the following services offered by each organization: organization not used or not available; consultation services; assessment conferences; training workshops; publications or research reports (1 = used; 0 = not used). |
|
Four item factorially-derived score. (II B 3-6) Reflects the importance of internal institutional purposes for undertaking student assessment: guiding undergraduate academic program improvement; improving achievement of undergraduate students; improving faculty instructional performance; guiding resource allocation decisions (1 = no importance; 2 = minor importance; 3 = moderate importance; 4 = very important). Cronbach alpha = .79. |
|
Single item. (II B 1) Reflects importance of preparing for institutional accreditation self-study as a purpose for undertaking student assessment (1 = no importance; 2 = minor importance; 3 = moderate importance; 4 = very important). |
|
Single item. (II B 2) Reflects importance of meeting state reporting requirements as a purpose for undertaking student assessment (1 = no importance; 2 = minor importance; 3 = moderate importance; 4 = very important). |
|
|
|
Single item. (I A 1) Reflects extent to which institutions collect data on current student’s academic intentions or expectations (1 = not collected; 2 = collected for some students; 3 = collected for many students; 4 = collected for all students). |
|
Single item. (I A 2) Reflects extent to which institutions collect data on current student’s college-readiness skills (1 = not collected; 2 = collected for some students; 3 = collected for many students; 4 = collected for all students). |
|
Four item factorially-derived scale. (I A 3-6) Reflects the extent to which institutions collect data on current students’ cognitive performance: competence in major field; general education competencies; higher-order cognitive skills; vocational or professional skills (1 = not collected; 2 = collected for some students; 3 = collected for many students; 4 = collected for all students). Cronbach alpha = .71. |
|
Affective assessment Three item factorially-derived scale. (I A 7-9) Reflects the extent to which institutions collect data on current students’ affective development and satisfaction: experiences and involvement with institution; satisfaction with institution; personal growth and affective development (1 = not collected; 2 = collected for some students; 3 = collected for many students; 4 = collected for all students). Cronbach alpha = .68. |
|
Single item. (I A 10) Reflects extent to which institutions collect data on current student’s academic progress (1 = not collected; 2 = collected for some students; 3 = collected for many students; 4 = collected for all students). |
|
Three item factorially-derived scale. (I A 11,12,14) Reflects the extent to which institutions collect data from former students: vocational or professional outcomes; further education; satisfaction and experiences with institution after leaving (1 = not collected; 2 = collected for some students; 3 = collected for many students; 4 = collected for all students). Cronbach alpha = .83. |
|
Single item. (I A 13) Reflects extent to which institutions collect data on former student’s civic or social roles in the community (1 = not collected; 2 = collected for some students; 3 = collected for many students; 4 = collected for all students). |
|
Nine item additive index. (I A 1-9) Reflects when institutions collect data (1 = not collected; 2 = collected at one point in time; 3 = collected at entry and while enrolled, or while enrolled and at exit; 4 = collected at entry and at exit; 5 = collected at entry, while enrolled, and at exit). |
|
Nine item additive index. (I B 1-9) Reflects student assessment instruments (institutionally developed, state provided, and commercially available) used by institution to collect ten types of assessment information: student plans or expec-tations; basic college-readiness skills; higher-order cognitive skills; general educ-ation competencies; competence in major; vocational or professional skills; person-al growth and affective development; experiences or involvement with institution; satisfaction with institution (1 = instrument used; 0 = instrument not used). |
|
Four item factorially-derived scale. (I C 1-4) Reflects the extent to which institutions use innovative or nontraditional assessment methods: performance in capstone courses; portfolios or comprehensive projects; observations of student performance; individual interviews or focus groups (1 = not used; 2 = used in some units; 3 = used in most units; 4 = used in all units). Cronbach alpha = .61. |
|
Two item factorially-derived scale. (I C 8-9) Reflects the extent to which institutions use assessment methods that data from external constituencies: employer interviews or focus groups; alumni interviews or focus groups (1 = not used; 2 = used in some units; 3 = used in most units; 4 = used in all units). Cronbach alpha = .63. |
|
Single item. (I C 5) Reflects extent to which institutions use transcript analysis to collect student assessment information (1 = not used; 2 = used in some units; 3 = used in most units; 4 = used in all units). |
|
Single item. (I C 6) Reflects extent to which institutions use external examinations to collect student assessment information (1 = not used; 2 = used in some units; 3 = used in most units; 4 = used in all units). |
|
Single item. (I C 7) Reflects extent to which institutions use interviews with withdrawing students to collect student assessment information (1 = not used; 2 = used in some units; 3 = used in most units; 4 = used in all units). |
|
Four single items. (I D 1-4) Reflect the use of different assessment methods for the following different student populations: a = adult students; b = part-time students; c = minority students; d = distance education students (1 = different method; 2 = same method). |
|
Nine item additive index. (I E 1-9) Reflects the number of studies institutions conduct on the relationship between aspects of students’ institutional experiences and performance: course-taking patterns; exposure to different teaching methods; patterns of student-faculty interaction; extra-curricular activities; residence arrangements; financial aid and/or employment; admission standards or policies; academic advising patterns; classroom, library and/or computing resources (1 = conduct study; 0 = do not conduct study). |
|
Five item additive index. (I F 1-5) Reflects the levels of aggregation at which student assessment data are provided as reports: institution-wide; schools or colleges; academic programs or departments; special populations or subgroups of students; by course or groups of courses (1 = report provided; 0 = report not provided). |
|
|
|
Three item additive index. (II A 1 a-c) Reflects institutions’ mission statement emphasis on undergraduate education and its assessment: emphasizes excellence in undergraduate education; identifies educational outcomes intended for students; refers to student assessment as important activity (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Seven item additive index. (II C 1-7) Reflects the number of administrative or governance activities used by institutions to promote student assessment: annual institution-wide assessment forums or seminars; rewards or incentives for administrators promoting use of assessment in unit; incentives for academic units to use assessment information; assessment workshops for administrators; board of trustees committee addresses assessment; faculty governance committee addresses assessment; student representation on assessment committees (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Four item additive index. (II D 2-5) Reflects the degree to which chief executive officer, academic and student affairs administrators, and faculty support student assessment (1 = very unsupportive; 2 = somewhat unsupportive; 3 = neutral or unknown; 4 = somewhat supportive; 5 = very supportive). |
|
Seven single items. (II E 1 a-g) Reflects the institutions plan or policy for student assessment: a = formally adopted plan or policy requiring assessment activities for all academic units; b = formally adopted plan or policy requiring assessment activities for some academic units; c = formally adopted plan or policy requiring all academic units to develop their own assessment plan; d = formally adopted plan or policy stipulating institution-wide activities to be conducted by central committee, office, or officer; e = has no formal plan or policy but academic units are encouraged to conduct their own assessment activities; f = is currently developing plan or policy; g = does not have an assessment plan or policy (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Single item. (II E 1 a) Reflects institution has formal institutional plan or policy requiring specified student assessment activities of all academic units or programs (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Single item. (II E 2) Reflects institution has institution-wide group for student assessment planning and policy setting (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Nine item additive index. (II E 3 a-i) Reflects the number of internal members included in the institution’s assessment planning group: chief executive officer; academic affairs administrator(s)/staff; student affairs administrator(s)/staff; institutional research administrator(s)/staff; academic review and evaluation administrator(s) /staff; student assessment administrator(s)/staff; faculty; students; other. |
|
Responsibility for planning group Seven single items. (II E 4 a-g) Reflect the internal members who have executive responsibility for the institution-wide group responsible for planning or policy-setting for assessment: a = academic affairs administrator; b = student affairs administrator; c = institutional research officer; d = academic review and evaluation officer; e = student assessment officer; f = faculty member; g = other (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Eleven single items. (II E 5 a-k) Reflect the internal members who approve any changes to institutions assessment plan or policy: a = board of trustees; b = chief executive officer; c = chief academic affairs officer; d = chief student affairs officer; e = institutional research officer; f = academic review and evaluation officer; g = student assessment officer; h = student government; i = academic senate or other faculty committees; j = faculty union; k = other (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Eight single items. (II E 6 a-h) Reflect the internal members who have operational responsibility for the institution’s day-to-day assessment activities: a = academic affairs administrator; b = student affairs administrator; c = institutional research officer; d = academic review and evaluation officer; e = student assessment officer; f = faculty member; g = other; h = no one (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Six single items. (II E 7 a-f) Reflect the individual to whom person with day-to-day responsibility reports: a = chief executive officer; b = chief academic affairs officer; c = chief student affairs officer; d = institutional research officer; e = academic review and evaluation officer; f = other (1 = yes; 0 = no). Conducted evaluation Single item. (II F 1 a-d) Reflects if institution has formally or informally evaluated its student assessment process (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Eight single items. (II F 2 a-h) Reflect the elements that were reviewed during the institutions assessment evaluation: a = student assessment plan or policies; b = structure and responsibility for assessment; c = achievement of intended objectives; d = reliability and validity of instruments and methods; e = quality of data analysis; f = use of information in institutional decision-making; g = problems encountered; h = comparison of costs and benefits (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
Assessment Management Policies and Practices |
|
|
Two item additive index. (IV A 3-4) Reflects formal use of assessment information in the budget process: to competitively allocate resources among academic units; to reward academic units for improvement (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Three item additive index. (IV B 2-4) Reflects institutional capacity to collect and manage student assessment information: computerized student information system includes student performance indicators; student information system tracks individual students; student assessment database integrated with other institutional databases (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Five item additive index. (IV C 1-5) Reflects internal accessibility of assessment information on individual students by: institutional research or assessment professionals; senior academic administrators; department chairs or academic program administrators; student affairs professionals; faculty advisors (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Six item additive index. (IV D 1-6) Reflects the number of constituent groups to whom student assessment reports are regularly distributed: students; faculty; academic administrators; student affairs professionals; employers; general public (1 = yes; 0 = no). |
|
Three item factorially-derived scale. (IV E 1,3,4) Reflects the extent to which institutions have policies or practices to promote student involvement in assessment activities: inform students about assessment purposes and uses; require students to participate in assessment activities; provide students with individual feedback on assessment results (1 = not done at all; 2 = done in a few departments; 3 = done in some departments; 4 = done in many departments; 5 = done in most departments). Cronbach alpha = .69. |
|
Four item factorially-derived scale. (IV F 2-5) Reflects existence of professional development policies or practices on student assessment for faculty and academic administrators: provide funds for faculty to attend or present at assessment conferences; offer student assessment workshops or consultation for faculty; provide assistance (e.g., paid leaves, stipends, course reduction) to improve faculty use of student assessment; provide student assessment workshops for academic administrators (1 = not done at all; 2 = done in a few departments; 3 = done in some departments; 4 = done in many departments; 5 = done in most departments). Cronbach alpha = .77. |
|
Two item factorially-derived scale. (IV F 6-7) Reflects existence of professional development policies or practices on student assessment for student affairs personnel: require assessment training for student affairs staff; provide student assessment workshops for student affairs administrators (1 = not done at all; 2 = done in a few departments; 3 = done in some departments; 4 = done in many departments; 5 = done in most departments). Cronbach alpha = .84. |
|
Five item factorially-derived scale. (IV G 1-5) Reflects existence of faculty evaluation and reward policies and practices related to student assessment: promotion evaluation considers evidence of student performance; salary evaluation considers evidence of student performance; promotion, tenure or salary reviews consider faculty participation in student assessment; promotion, tenure or salary reviews consider scholarship on assessment; public recognition or awards for faculty use of student assessment (1 = not done at all; 2 = done in a few departments; 3 = done in some departments; 4 = done in many departments; 5 = done in most departments). Cronbach alpha = .77. |
|
Four item factorially-derived scale. (IV H 1-4) Reflects the incorporation of student assessment data into academic planning and review processes for: academic departments or undergraduate programs; general education or core curriculum; courses; student academic support services (1 = not done at all; 2 = done in a few departments; 3 = done in some departments; 4 = done in many departments; 5 = done in most departments). Cronbach alpha = .84. |
|
|
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects the integration of student assessment data into the strategic planning for the institution. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects the integration of student assessment data into the academic program review at the institutional, divisional, and departmental levels. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects the integration of student assessment data into the budget planning for the institution. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects the integration of student assessment data into the improving institutional quality of education. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects the integration of student assessment data into instructional and teaching improvement. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects the integration of student assessment data into the strategic planning for the institution. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects the integration of student assessment data into the strategic planning for the institution. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects the integration of student assessment data into the strategic planning for the institution. |
|
|
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects administrator, faculty, and staff attitudes toward the institutions student assessment processes. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Characterizes rituals associated with the institution’s student assessment process. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects certain forces of the institution’s that tend to drive or promote its student assessment effort. |
|
Qualitative variable used in Phase III. Reflects administrator, faculty, and staff beliefs about the institutions student assessment processes. |