Why We Have Assessment Data and What to Do With It

1. Why We Have Assessment Data and What to Do With It A brief history of the assessment movement and the data decisions faced by departments Karen Bendersky, Psychological Science Jason H. Stover, Mathematics Assessment Day 2012, Georgia College

2. Why We Have Assessment Data Part I

3. Total Quality Management (TQM) and Higher Education • Original TQM Principles • W. Edwards Deming and stats, manufacturing

4. Examples of Control Charts

5. Total Quality Management (TQM) and Higher Education • Original TQM Principles • W. Edwards Deming and stats, manufacturing • Deming and education • Doing/Implementing phase • Studying phase, tools • Acting phase • Higher Ed and adopting TQM • Early assessment: campus resources, exams • 80s-90s: • National education reports of declines • TQM pubs, consultant, adoption • DoE, William Bennett (‘85 – ’88) • Added criteria to rules for accrediting agencies • Self-assessments of quality and improvement efforts

7. Total Quality Management (TQM) and Higher Education • TQM is QEP (Quality Enhancement Plan) • Similar language • TQM • “Customer satisfaction” • “Continuous improvement” • Tools • SACS • “Ongoing program of improvement” • “Institutional commitment to the concept of quality enhancement” • Tools • Similar “phases”

8. TQM/QEP and GC • Worth fighting? • Known issues • Faculty resistance • A distraction from what we should be doing • Unsuccessful: more costs, more time • Corporate model applied to education: teaching and learning / buying and selling; “customers” • Not really • Accreditation/SACS • Georgia College departments and QEP • Outlined goals (learning outcomes) • Collected “data”

9. What to do with the data Part II

10. What We’re Supposed to Do • Show “tangible evidence of achievement” • Quantify and summarize data? • Charts, graphs? • But, SACS has no specified method. • They don’t necessarily require quantification • Beware of over quantification • Now What? • What do we do with the data? Departmental considerations.

11. Departmental Considerations • Placate SACS or identify real problems?

12. Discussion Groups • What are our program standards/goals? Do all students need to meet a minimum standard? What is average, poor? • How do we show continuous improvement? Readjust goals to reflect room for improvement? Do we set the bar higher? • What changes are we willing to make if data reflect problems? Stop assessing students (“customers”) who do not “take advantage of the service” (e.g., those who don’t study, who do not attend class, …) • Can we quantify our discipline? Some disciplines might not want to quantify outcomes. What do we do? • Are we willing to advise the administration to make unpopular adjustments? Learning issues may be systemic not departmental (cell phones in classrooms, Facebook, too much emphasis on extracurricular activities). Do we want to recommend campus changes? • Other considerations?…

13. References Boyer, C. M. (1985). Five reports: Summary of the recommendations of recent commission reports on improving undergraduate education (Report ECS-PS-85-3). Retrieved from the Education Commission of the States. Briggs, C. L., Stark, J. S., & Rowland-Poplawski, J. (2003). How do we know a “continuous planning” academic program when we see one? The Journal of Higher Education, 74(4), 361 – 385. Edler, F. H. W. (2004). Campus Accreditation: Here comes the corporate model. Thought & Action, 91 – 104. Flores-Molina, J. C. (2011). A total quality management methodology for universities (Doctoral dissertation, Florida International University).   May, K. D. (1991). Point nine: Break down barriers between departments. In R. I. Miller (Ed.), Applying the Deming method to higher education for more effective human resource management (pp. 83 – 89). Washington, DC: College and University Personnel Association. McDowell, L., Wakelin, D., Montgomery, C., & King, S. (2011). Does assessment for learning make a difference? The development of a questionnaire to explore the student response. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(7), 749 – 765. National Institute of Education, Secretary of Education and the Director of the National Institute of Education, Final Report of the Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education (Report 065-000-00213-2). Schwartzman, Roy. (1995). Are students customers? The metaphoric mismatch between management and education. Education, 116(2), 215 – 222. Sims, S. J. (1992). Student outcomes assessment. A Historical review and guide to program development. New York, New York: Greenwood Press. Sims, S. J., & Sims, R. R. (Eds, 1995). Total quality management in higher education. Is it working? Why or why not? Westport, CT: Praeger. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges. (2011, 5th ed.). The principles of accreditation: Foundations for quality enhancement. Archives of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Decatur, Georgia. Retrieved from http://www.sacscoc.org/principles.asp Tannock, J. D. T. , & Burge, S. E. (1994). The EPC model for quality assurance in higher education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 19(3), 263 – 274. Thompson, K. (1992). Quality control in higher education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 40(1), 51 – 56. Wingspread Group on Higher Education, Johnson Foundation, Inc. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. An open letter to these concerned about the American future.