An InsideHigherEd.com article recently described two current points of consensus in measuring student learning outcomes in higher education.  One is that faculty are not engaged enough in institutional assessment.  The other is that without real faculty involvement in assessment, the measures are meaningless.  What a conundrum for the assessment world.  The article explores several recent articles and reports on this disparity and what it means for our colleges and universities.  The comments that readers have made so far are great at showing the difference in opinions ob this topic.

The Annual Meeting of the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is wrapping up today and as Insidehighered.com reports: “Virtually all of the national higher education leaders who spoke to the country’s largest accrediting group sent a version of the same message: The federal government is dead serious about holding colleges and universities accountable for their performance, and can be counted on to impose undesirable requirements if higher education officials don’t make meaningful changes themselves.”

In the keynote address for HLC, Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education said, “‘If we fail to act, it is likely that change will be imposed upon us, with potentially serious consequences for the governance structure that has allowed the United States to develop the best, most inclusive’ higher education system in the world.”  While those of us in assessment and accreditation are used to the idea of increased accountability, this article reveals a more menacing tone in the national conversation on higher education.

I recently returned from the A&M Assessment Conference and I was pleased at the offerings for both academic and student affairs.  The 10th annual conference, held in College Station, Texas from February 21-23, was attended by roughly 500 practitioners.  The headlining speaker was Dr. Belle Whelan, president of SACS Commission on Colleges and Schools, one of those presenters who is both witty and knowledgeable.

There were 5 program tracks, one of which was Assessing Student Affairs and Student Development.  I like that the conference posts the handouts from the workshops and presentations.  Some presentations of interest to the Student Affairs community might be:

• Assessing Outcomes in Student Affairs by John Cissik of Texas Woman’s University
• Begin with the End in Mind: Effective Dimensions of Assessment in Academic and Student Affairs by Ge Chen, Glen Baumgart, and R. Joseph Rodriquez of UT Austin
• Examples of Good Practice in Assessment of Academic Advising by Farris, Gaede, Harper, Hull, and Street of Texas A&M

I recommend this conference if you are just getting your feet wet in assessment or if you have been in the game for a while.  The A&M Assessment Conference is a friendly, approachable setting to develop your knowledge of higher education and assessment.

The Chronicle of Higher Education recapped the annual meeting of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) in an article yesterday, where accrediting agencies were accused by the Department of Education of being too secretive in the processes they utilize to assess post-secondary institutions.  Interestingly, regional accrediting bodies are private member organizations and can opt to keep certain information out of the public arena.

Taking attendance at events and programs is nothing new. Whether it’s for keeping track of  numbers or to turn in expense reports, sign-in sheets become part of the programming tradition. But, what if you took attendance to the next level? A few days ago I wrote about using a swipe-card system with student IDs to automate the sign-in process. The benefit to this is the amount of data that comes out of just looking at these sign-in lists. However, there are other ways to keep track of students – even if it means hand entering sign-in sheets.

By tracking attendance per-student, there are many ways to look at attendance patterns. Do you have 100 people attending your programs or 10 people attending 10 programs each? Do you have more first year or continuing students? Is a residential community or off-campus population more represented? Are there any patterns in GPAs or conduct issues with students who attend programs? Do certain majors attend certain program? Yes, those are a lot of questions and there are plenty more to ask.

Having specific data also helps with follow up and future promotion. If a student attends a resume workshop you can follow up and recommend an interviewing workshop.  If a student attends How to Choose a Major you can follow up in a few months to see if they have chosen a major and remind them of the resources available. Or, if you really want to get ambitious, ask follow-up questions a month after a program to see what knowledge was retained or behaviors impacted.

What was once the tedium of taking attendance now becomes a treasure trove of assessment data and student engagement opportunities.

(Photo by flickr user Swiv)

Data from a recent study was released earlier this week to determine if college retention programs are smart investments. The study titled Calculating Cost-Return for Investments in Student Success was conducted by The Delta Cost Project and Jobs for the Future.

Some interesting findings from the study are…

-Data about spending in relation to performance for all campus programs (not just student success programs) are unavailable for most campuses. Thus, there is no context for determining the cost-effectiveness of student success programs compared with other options for increasing degree attainment.

- The annual direct program costs per student varied widely (from $59 to $1,601 per student), as would be expected from the range of types of programs surveyed. However, these program costs remain a fraction of the annual full costs per student for the general student population, which are $6,802 to $19,108 per student for these institutions.

- Seven of the thirteen programs showed an increase in retention that could be associated with participation in the student success programs.

- The ISS Cost-Return Calculator is a useful tool for institution-level decision-making, and specifically for understanding the costs of success for particular students served by certain interventions.

- Almost all of thirteen institutions experienced a “change in conversation” around first-year programs, student outcomes, and cost-effectiveness because of the process of using the calculator.

Additional Thoughts

I fully believe in assessment and was somewhat surprised most campuses did not have data to participate in the study. I also understand in today’s climate monetary and program cuts are inevitable. Knowing all this it still bothers me the “effectiveness” of a program is based on the cost-effectiveness and not learning. The calculator is a great tool but should not be the only data used in making decisions that will change the learning environment of a campus.

Inside Higher Ed published an article today about The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE); what is it and 2009 survey results. I have never used the NSSE and have heard mixed results from my higher education colleagues.

Does you campus use the NSSE? If so what are your thoughts? If not what is your campus assessment plan for longitudinal involvement studied?