Assessment in Student Affairs has come a long way from satisfaction surveys and activity/program evaluations in the last 10-15 years. We in Student Affairs also rely less on our corporate wisdom of what students need and look to hard data and listen to our students’ voices. According to El-Khawas (1995), in the early 1980’s only a small number of campuses were assessing educational programs. In large part both academics and student affairs have increased assessment and evaluation activities due to pressure from outside entities such as federal and state governments, governing boards, parents, students and the general public (Upcraft and Schuh, 1996).
Ten years ago when we established our Assessment Office in our Student Development Division, there were very few student affairs assessment offices across the United States. Two Texas institutions, Texas State University and Texas A&M, were the first in the state to set the pace for the rest of us. At that time research on students and any surveys for student affairs departments were handled by institutional research offices and academic departments. A good example of this is the Cooperative Institutional Research Project (CIRP) surveys that have been administered for over 40 years by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.
Today student affairs professionals are more likely to be familiar with comprehensive assessment plans using both qualitative and quantitative data to make informed decisions. With the publication of Learning Reconsidered (NASPA, ACPA, etc.), we are focusing on student learning outcomes.
ACPA, NASPA. Learning Reconsidered. Washington, DC: NASPA, ACPA, 2004.
El-Khawas, E. Campus Trends, 1995.
Higher Education Panel Report No. 85. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1995
Upcraft, M.L. &; Schuh, J.H. Assessment in Student Affairs: A Guide for Practitioners. San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1996.
Ten years ago when we established our Assessment Office in our Student Development Division, there were very few student affairs assessment offices across the United States. Two Texas institutions, Texas State University and Texas A&M, were the first in the state to set the pace for the rest of us. At that time research on students and any surveys for student affairs departments were handled by institutional research offices and academic departments. A good example of this is the Cooperative Institutional Research Project (CIRP) surveys that have been administered for over 40 years by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.
Today student affairs professionals are more likely to be familiar with comprehensive assessment plans using both qualitative and quantitative data to make informed decisions. With the publication of Learning Reconsidered (NASPA, ACPA, etc.), we are focusing on student learning outcomes.
References:
ACPA, NASPA. Learning Reconsidered. Washington, DC: NASPA, ACPA, 2004.
El-Khawas, E. Campus Trends, 1995.
Higher Education Panel Report No. 85. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1995
Upcraft, M.L. &; Schuh, J.H. Assessment in Student Affairs: A Guide for Practitioners. San
Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1996.
Blog Author - Dr. Jan Hillman, Executive Director, Planning and Advancement for Student Development University of North Texas
Processing Question: What structure does your student affairs division use to
direct assessment activities?
No comments:
Post a Comment