Search

The purpose of the present study was to investigate how faculty members coalesce into distinguishable groups in terms of their perceived cultures of assessment at their respective institutions. To ...

After examining typical legal contexts for IR practice, this chapter offers the Practices, Policies, and Legal Boundaries (PPLB) framework for using laws as guidelines for policy and practice.

Despite its prominence, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is often misinterpreted and misapplied. This chapter clarifies historical developments, common misconceptions, and modern applications of the law.

In this study, results are presented from a rigorous content analysis of responses to two open-ended questions included in the Administrators' Survey of Assessment Culture. A sample of 302 US higher education administrators provided 566 narrative responses addressing (1) the primary reason they conducted assessment on campus, and (2) how they would characterize their campus assessment cultures. Analysis revealed two meta-themes: “Institutional Structures,” including procedures, data usage, and accountability; and “Organizational Culture,” administrators' descriptions of rituals, artifacts, discourse, values, and change related to assessment. Implications are shared for reframing and cultivating notions of institutional cultures of assessment.

Although touted as beneficial to student learning, cultures of assessment have not been examined adequately using validated instruments. Using data collected from a stratified, random sample (N = 370) of U.S. institutional research and assessment directors, the models tested in this study provide empirical support for the value of using the Administrators’ Survey of Assessment Cultures as an assessment tool. The resulting first order model provided good fit statistics and included five factors: a) Faculty Perceptions, b) Use of Data, c) Sharing, d) Compliance or Fear Motivators, and e) Normative Purposes for Assessment. Internal consistency estimates were also good (Cronbach’s α = .792 to .922). Use of the Schmid-Leiman solution afforded further support for the higher order factor, Culture of Assessment. Predictive discriminant analysis correctly classified the majority of the respondents (80.7%) as belonging to a student learning or accreditation group based on the linear classification scores. Implications for assessment leadership, practice, and future research are offered.

The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of online master’s students regarding their best learning experiences. The authors surveyed 86 graduate students concerning what helped them learn in the online environment. Results indicate that although graduate students learned using the same technological tools as undergraduates, they desired a deeper level of learning that requires more instructional forethought and planning. Student experiences were consistent with the constructivist theory, and implications for improving teaching based upon the constructivist theory are highlighted.

Institutional cultures of assessment are praised as beneficial to student learning. Yet, extant studies have not explored the theoretical foundations and pragmatic approaches to shaping cultures of assessment. The researchers used the Delphi method to explore 10 higher education assessment leaders’ attitudes and theoretical perspectives regarding cultures of assessment. These expert assessment leaders were iteratively surveyed until a reasonable threshold of consensus was reached. Study participants viewed buy-in as a necessary component of a positive campus culture of assessment, and advice on reshaping negative cultures was offered. Assessment leaders’ guiding theoretical frameworks were implied and loosely defined with metaphors. Finally, advice is offered for improving cultures of assessment by symbolically connecting assessment to student learning through dialogue.

The empirical reporting practices of developmental education and community college researchers who published in the Community College Journal of Research and Practice (CCJRP) and the Journal of Developmental Education (JDE) from 2002 to 2011 were investigated. Of the 1,165 articles available, 181 articles met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to full review. Authors identified the following components in the published research studies: problem formulation, theoretical framework, sources of evidence, measurement, statistical analyses, and figures and correlation matrices. Though more than half of the reviewed article authors provided research questions, more than half of those phrased at least one research question in a dichotomous response format. A theoretical framework was reported only 36.5% of the time. The setting for the majority of the reviewed articles was a two-year college; however, this finding varied by journal type. At least 20% of the reviewed article authors did not report the sampl...

Theorisation about institutional cultures of assessment in higher education is hindered by an inability to measure the influence of institutional factors on assessment. The authors explore the factor structure of the Survey of Assessment Culture. A three factor model with strong reliability coefficients was developed and included the following factors fundamental to institutional cultures of assessment: (a) Clear Commitment, (b) Connection to Change, and (c) Vital to Institution. Future uses of the Survey of Assessment Culture and implications for research and practice are discussed.

Data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collected across seven years were used to predict final, cumulative grade point averages (GPA). Cross‐product regression was used to explore the predictive abilities of the NSSE benchmark scores for freshmen (n = 2578) and seniors (n = 2293) collected in cross‐sectional cohorts. Hierarchical regression was also used with 127 longitudinal responses in students’ first and senior years of college. In the cross‐sectional analyses, Level of Academic Challenge emerged as a significant predictor of GPA for freshmen, whereas the Active and Collaborative Learning benchmark was a significant predictor for seniors; both effects were modest. The cross‐sectional data explained 22.6% of the variance with 18.2% of this variance accounted for by pre‐college control factors (American College Test score and high school GPA). For the analysis of longitudinal data, 31.3% of the variance was explained and 27.8% was attributed to the pre‐college indicators. No benchmar...