|
This instrument, designed for the Phase II institutional survey, was
developed using the framework and literature review from Phase I. The
initial Phase I framework identified seven of eight domains represented
in this tool kit. Five were used in developing this survey: 1) external
influences on, 2) institutional approaches to, 3) institution-wide support
for, 4) academic management policies and practices for, and 5) uses and
impacts of student assessment. The domain for 6) institutional context
was incorporated into the analysis of the Phase II institutional survey
results using data from the 1995 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS). The domains for 7) institutional culture and 8) integration
with academic management and educational improvement were developed in
Phase III of the national study and are not part of this instrument.
The instrument contains 244 items, which are organized into five major
sections, paralleling the conceptual domains. Table
1 gives an overview of these five sections (conceptual domains) and
the subsections of the questionnaire and identifies the questionnaire
items related to each. This instrument was sent to all 2,524 two-year
and four-year non-profit institutions offering undergraduate education
in the United States. We received completed surveys from 1394 institutions
for a 55 percent response rate.
The results were compiled into a database and descriptive analysis and
frequency distributions were run on all items. Data was reduced through
either factor or cluster analysis. In the factor analysis, items within
sections were factored using an oblique rotation method. Items were chosen
for inclusion in the factor if they weighed most strongly on that factor,
their loadings exceeded .40, and they made sense conceptually (see Institutional
Support for Student Assessment: Methodology and Results of a National
Survey for further details on how the items factored). Cluster analysis
was used on sections of the questionnaire with yes/no responses. Several
sections of the survey consisted of dichotomous or categorical variables,
which did not lend themselves to factor analysis. In most instances, we
reduced data by summing scores within sections to create additive indices
of the "yes" responses.
Univariate and multivariate analysis were run using the indices to examine
the relationships between and the influences of the four domains (external
influences, approach, support, and management policies and practices)
on the uses and impacts. Finally, a regression analysis was used to identify
dimensions that lead to greater use of and have positive institutional
impacts of student assessment.
As a part of this tool kit, this instrument can be used to identify the
influences on, approaches to, patterns of support for, academic management
policies and practices for, and the uses and impacts of student assessment
at the user's institution. Furthermore, after completing the instrument,
results from the user's institution can be compared to other similar type
institutions by referring to Student Assessment by Differing Institutional
Types. This comparison can be helpful in identifying areas that may need
improvement.
This instrument used in Phase III of the national study draws on the
Institutional Support for Student Assessment (ISSA, see above) research
project undertaken in Phase II. Based on this national survey, seven institutions
that differed by type, control and accrediting region and which used several
approaches to student assessment, had a wide array of activities promoting
assessment, and actively used the data for academic decision-making were
identified. The institutions were contacted and asked to participate in
the study. The seven included Iowa State, Western Washington University,
Santa Fe Community College, South Seattle Community College, Wake Forest
University, Northwest Missouri State University, and Mercyhurst College.
Within each institution, a sample of two hundred tenure-track faculty
members and all academic and student affairs administrators involved in
student assessment were surveyed. The numbers were fewer for the institutions
with less than 200 faculty. The overall response rate for faculty in the
seven institutions was approximately 30 percent. Despite the seemingly
low response rate, respondents were representative of faculty by rank,
gender, and race at their institutions. Therefore, weights to correct
for non-response biases were not calculated.
The survey instrument, titled Institutional Climate for Student Assessment
(ICSA), was designed to assess respondent perceptions of their institution's
student assessment patterns and their own satisfaction with and involvement
in student assessment efforts. It was structured to parallel the original
Conceptual Framework for Organizational and Administrative Support for
Student Assessment, which reflected the findings of the Institutional
Support for Student Assessment institutional survey. The domains from
the Conceptual Framework for Influences of Faculty Satisfaction with and
Involvement in Student Assessment were used as topic headings. A series
of subheadings were then developed that included questions to measure
the multi-dimensional constructs under each topic heading. It was intended
for faculty, for academic and student affairs administrators, and for
institutional researcher, and assessment officers. The questions were
Likert-type response sets except for the demographic information that
was collected at the end of each survey.
The total number of respondents for the survey was approximately 255,
with as high as 182 faculty and 73 administrators responding, depending
on the question. The responses to the surveys were significantly different
for faculty and administrators therefore the analysis was restricted to
faculty only. This selection was accomplished by including only those
respondents whose primary appointment was faculty.
As a part of this tool kit, this instrument can be used to identify the
faculty and administrators' perceptions of the institution's student assessment
patterns and their satisfaction with and involvement in the institution's
student assessment efforts.
Table 1. Dimensions of Institutional Support for
Student Assessment
Dimension of Institutional Support |
Survey Question |
External Influences on Student Assessment
National Efforts
State Level Initiatives
Regional Accreditation Associations
Private Sector Support
Professional Association Support |
IIIC1a-b
IIIA1-5, IIIC1c, IIIC2c
IIIB1-3, IIIC2b
IIIC1d
IIIC2a,d |
Institutional Approach to Student Assessment
Content
Timing
Methods
Assessment Studies |
IA1-14
IA1-14
IB1-10, IC1-9, ID1-4
IE1-10, IF1-6 |
Institution-wide Strategy, Support, and Leadership
for Student Assessment
Institutional Support Strategy
Leadership and Governance Patterns
Evaluation of Student Assessment Processes |
IIA1-2, IIB1-7
IIC1-7, IID1-6, IIE1-9
IIF1-2 |
Assessment Management Policies and Practices
Budget / Resource Allocation
Information System
Access
Reports
Student Involvement
Professional Development
Faculty Evaluation
Planning and Review |
IVA1-4
IVB1-4
IVC1-5
IVD1-6
IVE1-4
IVF1-7
IVG1-7
IVH1-4 |
Uses and Impacts of Student Assessment
Education-related Decision-making
Faculty Decision-making
Internal Impacts
External Impacts |
VA1-5, 8-12
VA6-7
VB1-8
VB9-15 |
Integration with Academic Management and Educational Improvement |
Not included in this survey |
Institutional Culture for Student Assessment |
Not included in this survey |
Institutional Context |
Data obtained through IPEDS |
|
|