Publication Details

Abstract

Higher education insiders trumpet the use of results for improvement as the most important part of the assessment cycle. Yet, at the same time, we acknowledge the rarity of improvement, especially at a program level. What are some reasons the most important phase of assessment occurs so infrequently? To seek answers, we investigated the “Use of Results” sections in 54 program-level assessment reports. In some respects, our findings were positive. On average, programs reported making approximately three curricular or pedagogical changes annually. A closer inspection, however, revealed concerns: (1) the curricular or pedagogical changes were not explicitly linked to learning outcomes, (2) programs rarely reported making changes that affect several classes, (3) many of the reported changes were unclear, (4) and few programs reassessed to determine if changes actually led to learning improvement. Our research concludes by providing suggestions for how programs can more effectively use results to inform changes, reassess students to determine if changes led to learning improvement, and report on improvement processes.

Keywords: class size, productivity, student outcomes

Authors

• Mark Umbricht
• Kevin Stange

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Paul Courant, Ben Koester, Steve Lonn, Tim McCay, and numerous participants in seminars at the University of Michigan for helpful comments. This research was conducted as part of the University of Michigan Institutional Learning Analytics Committee. The authors are solely responsible for the conclusions and findings.

Copyright © Association for Institutional Research 2019