Examining the Evaluation of Student Learning in the Context of Accreditation

Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige

Trefferliste

Autor/in	Kyne, Kelsey Sellgren
Titel	Examining the Evaluation of Student Learning in the Context of Accreditation
Quelle	(2023), (58 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit Ed.D. Dissertation, The Florida State University
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
ISBN	979-8-3797-3856-3
Schlagwörter	Hochschulschrift; Dissertation; Student Evaluation; Accreditation (Institutions); Standards; Compliance (Legal); Higher Education; Outcomes of Education; Behavioral Objectives; Data Collection; Organizational Culture + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Thesis; Dissertations; Academic thesis; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; Accreditation; Institution; Institutions; Akkreditierung; Staatliche Anerkennung; Institut; Standard; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Lernleistung; Schulerfolg; Data capture; Datensammlung; Unternehmenskultur
Abstract	Overview and Problem of Practice: The evaluation of student learning in higher education is of interest to many stakeholders including students, faculty, higher education administrators, employers, governmental entities, and accreditors. Despite this interest, many institutions struggle to successfully facilitate the process of evaluating student learning. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) is one of seven regional accreditors in the U.S. whose member institutions are required to demonstrate their compliance with the standards of SACSCOC at regular intervals. One of these standards relates to the evaluation of student learning and reads, "The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of seeking improvement based on analysis of the results in student learning outcomes for each of its educational programs." The problem of practice (PoP) central to this dissertation in practice (DiP) is that member institutions consistently struggle to demonstrate their compliance with this standard at the time of the off-site decennial review. The SACSCOC reaffirmation classes of 2017, 2018, and 2019, saw non-compliance rates with this standard of 60%, 59%, and 61%, respectively. Purpose, Study Design, and Research Questions: The purpose of this DiP is to identify and analyze approaches used by SACSCOC member institutions seeking to demonstrate their compliance with the assessment standard. Within the context of an exploratory model, I conducted a document analysis of a sample of ten SACSCOC member institutions' narratives in order to understand how they sought demonstrate their compliance with the assessment standard. I developed the following four research questions to address the PoP: (i.) What approaches do institutions take to define goals for student learning?; (ii.) What guidelines do institutions put in place to navigate assessment activities?; (iii.) How do institutions report using the data collected in the assessment process to drive improvements?; and (iv.) What evidence do institutions provide that demonstrates assessment is part of the institution's culture, and not an exercise done strictly for accreditation purposes? Findings: Each research question yielded major findings which will be summarized here. Regarding research question 1, I found that one way all ten of the sampled institutions organize their assessment work is to create an institution-wide schedule of assessment that delineates key activities and deadlines. The major finding related to research question 2 is that there is significant variation both across and within institutions with respect to the specific instruments (e.g., written exams, surveys) used when conducting assessment. A primary finding related to research question 3 is that institutions commonly adjust academic supports (e.g., embedded tutoring) in response to data collected in the assessment process. Regarding research question 4, I found that all ten institutions incorporate assessment into its operations in ways that are not strictly for compliance purposes (e.g., listing learning outcomes in the catalog). Implications: The present study fills a gap in the literature by helping to describe the approaches institutions use to facilitate the assessment of student learning within the context of an accreditation review. The findings also deviate from existing literature in two critical ways. First, none of the sampled institutions reported using a pre/post assessment as identified by Shavelson (2010). Second, unlike the CAOs in Kuh and colleagues' research (2014), major changes reported by the sampled institutions related to changes in academic supports (e.g., embedded tutoring). Recommendations?: I have developed recommendations for both practitioners and researchers based on the findings of this study. For practitioners, my primary recommendations are to work toward a) developing a predictable schedule of assessment within their institutions, b) ensuring faculty are an integral part of the assessment process, and c) working with internal and external stakeholders to integrate assessment into the fabric of the institution. Thinking of future directions for research, the present study could be built upon by gaining access to institutions' compliance status, as determined by SACSCOC in order to evaluate the effectiveness of their assessment approaches. The current study provides a description of approaches used by institutions who are attempting to demonstrate their compliance with the assessment standard, but it is not able to speak to the resulting determination of compliance by SACSCOC. Another potential direction for future research involves examining the gains in student learning measured by the assessment process. While the present study is unable to address those gains, it may be possible to do so by obtaining the supporting documentation that accompanies the narratives and/or conducting interviews with institutional personnel. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01