Aligning Culture with Technology to Produce Better Data for LearningDr. Summer DeProw, Assessment Director

HLC Conference | April 2, 2017

Who is Here?

Assessment and/or Institutional Effectiveness Staff?

Administrators? Provost Office?

Faculty?

IT Staff?

2

Case Study

Culture

Infrastructure

Assessment processes

Aligning technology to fit or improve the culture, infrastructure, and

processes for quality student-learning assessment

Disclaimer and Confession

Disclaimer:

• My observations and experiences only

• Partnered Taskstream in Fall 2015

Technology can:

• Streamline assessment processes

• Assist with documenting assessment efforts

• Allows for better oversight of efforts

Technology will not:

• Substitute for faculty analysis and conclusions

• Manage the curriculum

• Change pedagogy

Culture

Google definition: the attitudes and behavior characteristics of a particular social group

Culture Observations:

• “It’s just a report”

• Intense focus on course-level assessment

• Inconsistent assessment nomenclature

• Extreme peer-review of General Education program

• No peer-review of programs

• Everyone knew student-learning assessment was required to satisfy HLC

Infrastructure

Dictionary.com definition: the basic, underlying framework or features of

a system or organization

Established Infrastructure:

• Most faculty are on 9-month contracts

• General Education Committee was active and organized

• Every program had an assessment leader, assessment committee, or both

• One large combined program-level and co-curricular assessment committee

Assessment Processes

Dictionary.com definition #1: a systematic series of actions directed to some end

Dictionary.com definition #2: a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner

Assessment Processes:

• Specially accredited programs had established processes

• No deliberate assessment planning for non-specially accredited programs

• Assessment management system in place but data entry was centralized

• Central storage of assessment information was limited

• Annual assessment reporting was not ubiquitous

• Questionable continuity

• Assessment guidelines were not established

Aligning Technology

Assessment PlanningInitially used a paper/pencil system to plan and report assessment efforts

Assessment Reporting

Nomenclature & Continuity

Documentation, Assessment Cycles, & Central Storage

Documentation, Assessment Cycles, & Central Storage

Campus Assessment Calendar

June 15 “Assessment Findings” due

October 15 “Action Plans” due

October 15 “Status Reports” due for the previous year

Campus Assessment Calendar

Due June 15, 2017

Due October 15, 2017

Due October 15, 2017 for the 2015-16

Assessment Cycle

Who Enters the Data? Decentralized system

Assessment leaders or department chairs

Currently training campus

“Standing Requirements” and “2015-16 Assessment Cycle” established by Dr. Topeka Small, Assistant Director of Assessment

Advantages

• Less errors

• Faculty ownership

• Decisions made by faculty at time of input

Disadvantages

• Less control

• Overly zealous assessment leaders

Peer Review: The Assessment Plan

Peer Review: The Assessment Report Rubric

Peer Review

What is Next at A-State? Co-Curricular Assessment

Summary

Culture

Infrastructure

Assessment processes

Aligning technology to fit or improve the culture, infrastructure, and

processes for quality student-learning assessment

Questions & Contact Information

Summer DeProwAssessment Director

sdeprow@astate.edu

Colleen ArreyDirector, Campus Solutions

carrey@taskstream.com