About OIAE Resources Reports Newsletters Activities Calendar  

    About Us  

Strategic Plan for the Office of Institutional
Assessment and Evaluation


Howard University is committed to continuous self-examination to demonstrate its accountability, effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its stated mission. Howard has thus established an Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation to centralize and monitor its assessment activities.

 

Mission
The mission of the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) shall be to coordinate and monitor a campus-wide assessment program that reflects the University’s mission and includes strategies for examining individual academic programs and support units for their effectiveness and the ways in which these programs and units interact to fulfill the University’s mission.

 

Goals
The Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation will serve as the central repository of assessment information and as the focal point for University-wide assessment activities. As such, this office will develop general guidelines and procedures for assessing effectiveness and student learning outcomes. In particular, through programs and services, the OIAE will:

  • elicit faculty, staff and student involvement in the development of assessment techniques, strategies, methods and tools to enhance learning, teaching and scholarly productivity and institutional effectiveness and provide reliable information that is used to improve program quality, effectiveness and efficiency (Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability);

  • conduct research in support of strategic planning, program improvement and resources allocation by utilizing qualitative and quantitative research methodologies so that the results can be used to improve the quality of educational experiences at the University (Research); and

  • serve as assessment and evaluation consultants and technical support personnel to other University offices, units, departments and individuals on the institutional, unit or program level (Education).


Vision
The Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation envisions working collaboratively with all academic and administrative support units to create, cultivate, and ultimately institutionalize a university-wide culture of evidence-based decision making in which Howard University realizes excellence in all of its initiatives and outcomes.

 


Core Values
The Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) embraces the following core values:

  • Quality in everything OIAE does
  • Collegiality in working relationships
  • Confidentiality for sensitive stakeholder information
  • Integrity in research methodology and statistical analysis
  • Sensitivity to the effect various cultural and environmental factors have on different types of institutional outcomes
  • Awareness of both the benefits and limitations of all assessment tools


Areas of Focus of the Office of Institutional Assessment
and Evaluation (OIAE)



Policy Development

The OIAE, in collaboration with the University-wide Outcomes Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness Committee, will spearhead the development and approval of a University-wide assessment policy.


Data Collection

The OIAE will serve as a collector and repository of data relating to student outcomes and institutional effectiveness. The OIAE will also coordinate assessment activities at the University to minimize duplication of data collection and reporting.
Review Process All aspects of the outcomes assessment and institutional effectiveness process will be periodically reviewed and revised, as appropriate, by designated members of the university community.


Annual Program Outcomes Assessment Reviews
The OIAE will conduct cyclical comprehensive reviews of all University assessment activities. The length of the cycle will be determined by the collective input of the University sub-committees on outcomes assessment and institutional effectiveness.


Technical Assistance

The OIAE will develop a strategic plan for providing technical assistance to academic and non-academic units that will be developing and implementing their individualized assessment plan.


Leadership
The OIAE will provide leadership on issues of outcomes assessment and institutional effectiveness to the university community.


Assessment Issues
The OIAE’s staff will stay abreast on national areas of interest and emphasis on outcome assessment. The OIAE will house a resource library of publications on outcomes assessment issues. This library will be available to the university community.


Overview of the Assessment Process


Assessment begins with defining goals and objectives. Goals are defined with respect to the institution and to its constituents – students, faculty, administrators, staff, and alumni. Assessment of goals at the institutional level has to reflect the vision of the leadership of the university and be grounded in its mission. The University’s mission provides a statement of the institution’s identity and is central to everything it does. The following is the June, 2009, recommended revised statement of Howard University’s mission:


Howard University, a culturally diverse, comprehensive, research intensive and historically Black private university, provides an educational experience of exceptional quality at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels to students of high academic standing and potential, with particular emphasis upon educational opportunities for Black students. Moreover, the University is dedicated to attracting and sustaining a cadre of faculty who are, through their teaching, research and service, committed to the development of distinguished, historically aware, and compassionate graduates and to the discovery of solutions to human problems in the United States and throughout the world. With an abiding interest in both domestic and international affairs, the University is committed to continuing to produce leaders for America and the global community.


An analysis of this mission statement suggests that the following overarching and foundational goals are central to Howard University’s mission and must be included in the assessment of institutional outcomes:

  • Recruitment of students of high academic potential, especially promising Black students
  • Provision of an educational experience of exceptional quality (for enrolled students)
  • Ability to attract and sustain a faculty who, through their research and teaching, helps Howard University maintain or exceed its status as a comprehensive, research-oriented university
  • Development of distinguished graduates
  • Development of compassionate graduates
  • Quest for solutions to human and social problems
    -in the United States
    -throughout the world

 

In order to assess these outcomes reliably, there are several words and phrases in the mission statement should be operationalized: high academic potential, promising, educational experience of exceptional quality, distinguished, and compassionate. For example, is “high academic potential” defined by a grade point average, a score on a standardized test, a recommendation from a teacher, or some weighted combination of all of the above? Also, what does it mean to be “historically aware”? Table 1 demonstrates how some of the words and phrases can be defined so that they can be assessed and evaluated to determine institutional effectiveness.


Table 1: Performance Indicators/Data Sources

Howard University’s Mission Outcomes Data Sources
Recruitment of students of highacademic potential, especially promising Black students Profile of incoming freshman class and transfer students, which includes background information
Provision of an educational experience of exceptional quality (for enrolled students)
  • Course evaluations
  • Accrediting agencies reports
  • Graduating students’ exit surveys
  • Comparable assessment outcomes with aspirational peers
  • Direct measures of student learning
  • Indirect measures of student engagement and satisfaction
Ability to attract and sustain a faculty who, through their research and teaching, helps Howard University maintain or exceed its status as a comprehensive, research-oriented university
  • Profile of initial faculty appointments
  • Retention of tenured faculty at all faculty ranks
  • Course evaluations
  • Quality of faculty research
  • Quantity of faculty publications in peer-reviewed journals
Development of distinguished graduates
  • Graduating students’ exit surveys
  • Alumni surveys
  • Alumni giving
  • Number of student or graduates in leadership positions nationally and globally
  • Number of students or graduates involved in community service
Development of compassionate graduates
  • Alumni surveys
  • Alumni giving
  • Number of students or graduates involved in social justice activities
  • Number of students or graduates involved in community service locally, nationally and internationally
Quest for solutions to human and social problems -in the United States -throughout the world
  • Content analysis of faculty research
  • Student evaluation of instructor
  • Number of students, faculty, and graduates involved in social justice activities
  • Number of faculty or students who participate in research or development exchange programs in the United States or abroad



A Conceptual Framework for OIAE: Self-Regulation through Continuous Assessment, Evaluation and Improvement


The Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) operates from a framework of continuous improvement through self-regulation. Self-regulation is a systematic process in which individuals or units voluntarily regulate their actions in order to meet desired goals and objectives. (Schunk, 2004; Zimmerman, 2000). This type of regulation includes making appropriate use of resources including time, the environment and the assistance of colleagues within and outside of their department or unit.

This approach to assessment promotes a measure of autonomy for the various units and departments while simultaneously engaging in a collective effort to increase institutional effectiveness. In order to establish a lasting culture of evidence-based decision- making, the OIAE must encourage as well as assist departments and units to engage in self-assessment and evaluation rather than relying solely on an external unit to stimulate improvement. That said, it must be understood that OIAE is not a policing agent designed to highlight the shortcomings of department and units; rather, the office was established to assist in the development and implementation of tailored-made improvement plans that can be carried out independently and successfully by individual departments and units.

Engaging in self-regulation is beneficial for three reasons:

  1. Continuous Improvement – In order for the institution to remain competitive and effective in this dynamic environment, it must be able to constantly evolve and grow. Continuous improvement involves the recurring development and implementation of innovative and effective actions that occur as a result of repeated self-assessment, self-reflection and self-improvement. The process of continuous improvement, when it is continual and gradual, is therefore less stressful and perceived as less burdensome.
  2. Quality assurance – Self-regulation requires the institution to compare its performance against its unique mission, goals and objectives in order to provide a measure of self-confidence to the students, parents, employers, alumni, members of the community and other stakeholders that it is indeed fit to carry out its intended purpose.
  3. Accountability – Because of the rigorous external requirements set by state and federal governments as well as voluntary standards set in collaboration with professional accreditation agencies, institutions must self-monitor and self-correct in order to avoid repercussions. Self-regulation enables the institution to identify and rectify problems on an on-going basis.


The figure below is a graphic representation of the OIAE’s interpretation of self-regulation in action. This assessment loop is a cyclical process that encourages continuous improvement through self-regulation.

Figure 1: The Self-Regulation Assessment Loop

click to enlarge


Self-Awareness/Self-Knowledge – Prior to the establishment of an improvement plan, it is important for departments and units to be aware of and have an understanding of the University’s mission and goals. This information will enable the departments and units to determine where they stand in relation to the mission and goals and determine the appropriate direction and approach to take in order to align themselves with the mission and goals.


Step 1: Self-Determination

Clearly defined goals are essential to the development of a successful, sustainable improvement plan (Behncke, 2002). By beginning with the end (goals/outcomes) in mind, the departments and units will be able to develop a systematic plan of action that will enable them to achieve their goals. When possible, students, faculty and the administrators should collaborate to set goals and objectives that are aligned with the mission of the University.


Step 2: Self-Monitoring and Self-Assessment

Self-monitoring [is] fundamental to self-regulation (Behncke, 2002). After goals and objectives have been determined and after a plan of action has been established, departments and units must carry out the plan of action and collect information (data) regarding the extent to which the plan is being implemented as well as the apparent strengths and weaknesses of the plan.


Step 3: Self-Reflection and Self-Evaluation
Accumulated data is examined in order to determine: (1) the extent to which goals and objectives have been met, (2) the strengths and weaknesses of the unit, and (3) any other information that provides insight that can be used for improvement.


Step 4: Self-Improvement
The interpretation of the data allows for evidence-based decision-making. Departments and units are able to determine the extent to which policies and practices are working or not working and make necessary adjustments or improvements. In addition, resource allocation, staffing, and other decisions can be determined from the evidence.


This Conceptual Framework serves as the foundation that guides the work of the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (OIAE) staff and other units engaged in assessment and evaluation at Howard University. The purpose for articulating this framework is to communicate to the administration, faculty, staff, students, and the larger community the OIAE’s modus operandi for increasing institutional effectiveness and ultimately achieving the mission of Howard University.


Organizing and Planning for Institutional Assessment

It is useful to have a plan for carrying out assessment activities. The activities are performed in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders. Stakeholders include students, faculty, staff, administrators and alumni. They also include units – schools and colleges on the academic side and administrative support units on the non-academic side. All of these individuals and units have one goal and that is to carry out the main business of the university – teaching and learning. That makes students and faculty the primary stakeholders. The next sections will focus on the assessment of student learning – that is, direct measures of students’ knowledge and skills at the time of entry through placement tests, the assessment of the acquisition of general education knowledge and skills that usually occurs in lower division courses and the application of those competencies in upper division courses. We will also assess capstone or culminating experiences that occur in upper division courses at or near graduation.


The OIAE also proposes timelines for indirect measures of student learning through the administration of surveys (as well as interviews and focus groups). These indirect measures focus on students’ perceptions of their needs, self-efficacy, engagement and satisfaction with their educational experiences at Howard University. In some cases, students’ perceptions are compared with faculty perceptions as well as the perceptions of students at peer, consortia or aspirational institutions.

We also propose a timeline and rating scale for assessing and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of assessment processes in the academic and administrative support units with the latter being conducted in collaboration with President Sidney Ribeau’s initiative, Student First Campaign. http://www.howard.edu/president/initiatives/sfc/


Assessment of the Student Learning


What types of knowledge and skills do all Howard men and women acquire during their matriculation? The answer is found in the general education outcomes of the university-wide core curriculum. A former President of Howard University noted:


“I am further proposing that the faculty develop a core curriculum for all undergraduate students to be centered in the College of Arts and Sciences. The core curriculum would ensure that all Howard students not only have a well-grounded understanding of the University's unique leadership role in the Civil Rights Movement (which advanced the liberation of women, as well as people of color), but that each graduate of the University possess the highest order skills in language, mathematics, the use of computers, and the ability to think critically and communicate effectively.
Early in the twenty-first century, these skills and attributes will be the sine qua non for all career seekers. Howard graduates with these abilities will be certain to have greater career opportunities. The core curriculum also would guarantee that all Howard students understand the importance of national and community service in a maturing and pluralistic democracy.”


The above statement outlines the following general education competencies for all Howard University undergraduate students. In essence, students will be competent in:

  • Quantitative and scientific reasoning
  • Written and oral communication
  • Critical thinking
  • Technological Literacy
  • Historical awareness
  • Health and well-being
  • Community service

These general education competencies are assessed in a variety of ways. Classroom-level assessment techniques include course-embedded assessments such as examinations, quizzes, artistic performances, research papers, oral presentations, case study analyses, and standardized tests. Program level assessment occurs through capstone projects, senior theses, conference presentations, employer or internship supervisor ratings of performance. Institutional level assessment occurs through the use of common rubrics for assignments in “general education” courses, final examinations or other tests that specifically measure the outcome (i.e., critical thinking). The assessment methods are not mutually exclusive with respect to the level on which the assessment occurs – some methods can be interchangeable.


It is important to choose assessment method(s) that will yield the most reliable and valid information about student learning. It is also important to establish timelines and to identify who is responsible for collecting the data for analysis and interpretation. Finally, no assessment process is complete unless there is a feedback loop. The feedback loop provides assessment results that can be used for purposes of evaluation, program development or improvement, resource allocation or additional planning.


Four Critical Points for Student Assessment
in Undergraduate Education


Throughout their higher education experience from admission to graduation, all students experience critical assessment points. The content, format and administration of the assessments may differ; however, virtually all students experience the following types of assessments: placement, assessment of “general education” competencies in the core curriculum, assessment of the application of “general education” competencies in the disciplines, and a capstone assessment or culminating experience that occurs at or near graduation. The appropriate assessment and the proper use of assessment results for making important educational decisions at each of these critical points can make the difference in quality of students’ educational experiences at the University.

 

Table 2: Critical Points for Student Assessments at the Undergraduate Level

click to enlarge



Table 3: Relationship between Assessment Tools and
Institutional Goals and Student Learning Outcomes


Table 3 presents the assessment tools that are used to gather data or information on institutional goals that are explicitly or implicitly communicated in the University’s mission statement and in the student learning outcomes in general education and the major disciplines.

click to enlarge

 


Assessment of General Education Competencies and
Capstone or Culminating Experiences

There are basic skills – or general education competencies -- that transcend all programs and degrees and that we believe all Howard men and women should possess upon completion of degree requirements. The assessment of these competencies – written and oral communication, quantitative and scientific reasoning, critical thinking and technological literacy – occurs at the course, departmental and unit levels. Critical thinking and technological literacy are assessed along with one or more of the other skills. There are also “value-added” competencies such as historical awareness, health and well-being and a commitment to community service. Table 4 presents a timeline for assessing the general education competencies and capstone/culminating experiences.


Table 4: Proposed Schedule for Assessment of General Education Competencies
and Capstone/Culminating Experiences for Undergraduate Education




 

Assessment of University Stakeholders

Table 5 presents the timeline for assessing the perceptions of students, faculty, staff, administrators, parents and alumni about educational experiences at Howard University. Most of these data are collected using survey research methodologies; others are direct measures of student learning.


Table 5: Proposed Schedule for Institutional Assessment of Students,
Faculty, Staff, Administrators, Parents and Alumni


Assessment of Schools and Colleges

Table 6 presents a proposed schedule or timeline for assessing the assessment plans, programs and processes of the various schools and colleges at Howard University. The College of Arts and Sciences (COAS) is targeted to be the first and only college on the schedule for the year 2008-09. The COAS was chosen because of (1) its pivotal role in implementing the university-wide core curriculum for undergraduates, (2) its size (more students, faculty, and departments than any other school or college), and (3) a desire to cultivate a culture of assessment among its constituents. Most of the other schools and college have already developed cultures that reflect an appreciation for a systematic, comprehensive approach to the assessment of student learning outcomes (Dwyer, Millet & Payne, 2006). These cultures have evolved over time because of interested faculty or because attention to accountability and assessment has been imposed by external forces such as accrediting agencies. Tables 6 and 7 show the proposed timelines for the assessment reviews of schools/colleges and administrative support units, respectively. Table 8 shows a sample rating scale that might be used in the assessment reviews. The criteria in Table 8 are based on the “fundamental elements” of Standard 7: Institutional Assessment as set forth by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.


Table 6: Proposed Schedule of Assessment Reviews for School and Colleges

School or College
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Arts and Sciences (COAS) x     x  
Business (SOB)     x    
Communication (SOC)   x      
Dentistry   x      
Divinity   x      
Education   x      
Engineering, Architecture, and Computer Sciences       x  
Graduate School   x      
Law       x  
Medicine     x    
Pharmacy, Nursing, and Allied Health Sciences     x    
Social Work     x    
HU Mid-Term Self-Study Assessments         x

 


Assessment of Administrative Support Units


In explaining the relationship between the academic units and the administrative support units in building a solid infrastructure for the University, a former president of Howard University noted the following:


“Strong academic programs are dependent upon efficient and effective support from a well-organized, highly-skilled administrative and logistical infrastructure. The administrative systems for a national research university like Howard must be tightly organized and characterized by a knowledgeable and motivated staff.
Orderly, reliable and responsive student services are the sine qua non of student satisfaction at any university, and arguably they determine in perpetuity the students' image of that university and their inclination or disinclination to support it after graduation.
Admissions, registration, housing, and financial aid are all essential to the life and well-being of the student community…” Strategic Framework for Action.


Although the academic units play the most important role in the intellectual development of students, it is unlikely that students will have a very successful and positive college experience without the support of the administrative support units who contribute mightily to their health and emotional well-being. Indeed, both units play an important role in ensuring that the University accomplishes its mission. Table 6 presents the proposed schedule for the assessment reviews for the administrative support units. The criteria in Table 7 will be used in these review processes also.


Table 7: Proposed Schedule of Assessment Reviews for Administrative Support Units


2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Administrative Support Unit (Staff)
Office of Enrollment Management –Admissions*
X
Office of Enrollment Management –Records*
X
Office of Enrollment Management –Financial Aid*
X
Office of Enrollment Management –Recruitment*
X
Residence Life
X
Dining Services
X
Health Services
X
University Libraries
X
Bookstore
X
Office of Student Activities
X
Special Student Services
X
Office of International Student Services
X
Campus Police
X
Parking Office
X
Campus Shuttle Service
X
Office of Career Planning and Placement
X
University Counseling Services
X
Post Office
X
Chapel/Religious Services
X
HU Mid-Term Self-Study Assessments
X
* Through participation in President Ribeau’s Initiative: Students First Campaign
26
27
Table 8: Sample Rating Scale for Assessing and Evaluating the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Assessment Processes in the Academic and Administrative Support Units
Developing
(1)
Proficient
(2)
Exemplary
(3)
CRITERIA6
Goals and Objectives
Grounded in the University’s mission
Clearly stated goals and objectives
Appropriately integrated with one another
Characteristics of Assessments within Plan
Systematic and sustained
Qualitative assessments (interviews, focus groups, performances, observations, portfolios,blogs, etc.)
Quantitative measures (course-embedded tests,standardized tests, surveys, retention/graduation rates, etc.)
Development of checklists, rating scales, or rubrics, where appropriate
Implementation of Assessment Plan
Evidence of support and collaboration with faculty or staff (buy-in)
Evidence of support and collaboration with administration (buy-in)
Clear guidelines for implementation (why and how)
Timetables (when)
Adequate resources (how much)
Provision for reporting assessment results to relevant constituencies
Provision for using assessment results to improve experiences of relevant constituencies
Assessment and Evaluation of Assessment Process
Internal periodic self-evaluation of effectiveness and comprehensiveness of unit assessment process (by unit)
External periodic evaluation of effectiveness and comprehensiveness of unit assessment process (by institution, accrediting agencies, funding agencies, professional organizations, etc.)
6 These criteria reflect the fundamental elements of Standard 7: Institutional Assessment as set forth by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2006).
28
Summary of Assessment Data Collected by OIAE, AY 2008-2009
Table 9: Provides a summary of the major assessments that were administered by the Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation during AY 2008-2009
Table 9: Institutional Assessment for the Academic Year 2008-2009
Assessment Instrument
Purpose
Target Population
When Does Assessment Take Place
Type of Administration
Who Assesses
Use of Assessment Results7
Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP)
(survey)
To gather information about expectations of the college experience, secondary school experiences, reasons for attending college, and other issues.
Freshman students
(Census)
During Fall Orientation of first year
Paper-based
(centralized)
The Howard University Counseling Center
- To build a profile of the expectations and aspirations of the freshman class and establish trend data on incoming students
- To provide normative data for comparisons among peer institutions and aspirational peer institutions
College Students Needs Assessment Survey (CSNAS)
(survey)
To assess and evaluate the self-perceived educational and personal needs of college students
Freshman undergraduate students (Census) and a sample of grad/professional students and sophomores
During Orientation for incoming students; during the first few weeks of semester for sophomores
Paper-based
(centralized)
Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (Office of the Provost)
- To help university personnel identify, recommend or develop programs and services to address the students' needs
Prospective Student and Parent Survey
2008
To identify and rate the importance of factors from a list of those deemed to be likely for consideration in the college selection process.
Prospective students and students
Early September Fall Semester 2008
Paper-based
Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (Office of the Provost)
-To inform recruitment strategies implemented by the Office of Admissions and university schools and colleges.
29
Assessment Instrument
Purpose
Target Population
When Does Assessment Take Place
Type of Administration
Who Assesses
Use of Assessment Results7
Assessment of General Education Competency:
Written Communication
To assess students’ level of proficiency with writing skills development in English 003
Mostly Freshmen and some sophomores
Final examination period: Spring Semester 2009
-Paper-based
-Essay
-Rubric scored
-Two raters
English Department
-To provide feedback to the English Department about student performance so that changes can be made at the course-level, where necessary
Assessment of General Education Competency:
Quantitative Reasoning
To assess students’ level of proficiency with the development of quantitative reasoning in College Algebra I, College Algebra II and Pre-calculus
All students
Final examination period: Spring Semester 2009
-Paper-based
-Constructed Response
-Key scored
Mathematics Department
-To provide feedback to the Mathematics Department about student performance so that changes can be made at the course-level, where necessary
Senior Comprehensive Examinations
(sample)
To assess students’ level of proficiency in their major course of study at or near the point of graduation
Seniors and some juniors
Senior Comp Exams: Fall Semester 2008
Variety of modalities
Departments
- Theatre Arts
-Classics
-English
-Biology
-Chemistry
-Mathematics
-Physics & Astronomy
-Political Science
-To use for program review and improvement
Howard University Undergraduate (UG) Graduating Student Exit Surveys 2009
The purpose of this survey is to obtain information about students’ undergraduate educational experiences at Howard University and their post-graduation plans.
Prospective candidates for graduation in undergraduate programs
April 15-May 15; Spring Semester
Web-based
Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation
-To improve programs and services for current and future students at Howard and measure the extent to which Howard is accomplishing its mission
30
Assessment Instrument
Purpose
Target Population
When Does Assessment Take Place
Type of Administration
Who Assesses
Use of Assessment Results7
Howard University Graduate/Prof
(GP) Graduating Student Exit Surveys 2009
The purpose of this survey is to obtain information about students’ educational experiences at Howard University in graduate and professional programs and their post-graduation plans.
Prospective candidates for graduation in graduate and professional programs
April 15-May 15; Spring Semester
Web-based
Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation
-To improve programs and services for current and future students at Howard and measure the extent to which Howard is accomplishing its mission
National Survey of Student Engagement 2009 (NSSE)
To measure student engagement in their academic careers
Freshmen and Seniors (Random sample from each population)
Spring Semester
Options
-Paper-based
-Web-based
Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (Office of the Provost)
-To determine the “value-added” experience of attending Howard University -- includes measures of the quality of academic advising, acquisition of knowledge, skills and personal development, amount of reading and writing, etc.
Faculty Survey of Student Engagement 2009 (FSSE)
The FSSE surveys faculty perceptions of student engagement
Random sample of faculty who teach undergraduate students
Spring Semester
-Web-based
Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation (Office of the Provost)
-To inform practice and faculty interactions with students
References
Behncke, L. (2002). Self-regulation: A brief review. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of
Sport Psychology. 4(1). Retrieved online from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss1/SelfRegulation.htm#References.
Dwyer, C.A., Millett, C.M., & Payne, D. G. (2006). A culture of evidence: Postsecondary
assessment and learning outcomes. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2006). Characteristics of excellence in
higher education: Eligibility requirements and standards. Philadelphia, PA: Middle States
Commission on Higher Education.
Millett, C. M., Payne, D. G., Dwyer, C. A., Stickler, L. M., & Alexiou, J. J. (2008). A culture
of evidence: An evidence-centered approach for student learning outcomes. Princeton, NJ:
ETS.
Schunk, D. H. (2004). Self-regulation through goal setting. Retrieved online from http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-4/goal.html
U. S. Department of Education (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher
education. Washington, DC: Author
Weissburg, P. & Ranville, M. (2007). The self-regulation of higher education: Accreditation
under attack. Paper presented at Institutional Foundations for Industry Self-Regulation
Conference February 16, 2007. Retrieved online from http://www.hbs.edu/units/tom/conferences/isr2007/agenda.html
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39).
San Diego: Academic Press.
31

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © Howard University, Office of Institutional Assessment and Evaluation, All rights reserved.
2565 Georgia Avenue, NW, Suite 111, Washington, DC 20059 | Contact OIAE
Tel : 202-865-0207 Fax : 202-234-2214 Contact Howard - WWW Disclaimer
Howard University Howard University, Office of Institutional Assessment & Evaluation