A Three-Pronged Model for Assessment Planning in Higher Education : A Three-Pronged Model for Assessment Planning in Higher Education Angela R. Albert
Héctor López-Román
Uday K. Nair July 17, 2003
A Need for Innovativeness : A Need for Innovativeness “A number of factors are examined to account for the persistence of traditional methods of assessment and the absence of widespread innovation. …Even in subject areas which lack a long tradition, innovation does not predominate…”
(Assessment Matters in Higher Education: Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches, edited by Sally Brown & Angela Glasner, 1999)
A Need for An Innovative Approach : A Need for An Innovative Approach
Higher Education is rapidly changing
Increased changes in mode of Delivery
Increased opportunities for distance delivery methods
Increased fragmentation of long course programs through the semester system and use of modules
Accountability extend beyond the institution
Increased focus on Continuous Quality Improvement
Planned Approach to Innovation : Planned Approach to Innovation Thoughtful strategy in implementation of change in current assessment process
If assessment is truly one of the most powerful levers faculty has to influence the way students learn
Change should be strategic in nature
Change should be intentional not accidental
The impact of the change should be considered carefully
Identifying Goals and Learning Outcomes to Measure : Identifying Goals and Learning Outcomes to Measure Would it be a good idea to know what the stakeholders (students, employers, faculty, accrediting agencies, parents, etc.) expects?
Would it be valuable to prioritize learning outcomes?
Would it be valuable to tie a particular learning outcome to strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats?
Would it be helpful to know where to focus as you consider available assessment resources?
Would it be valuable to identify the performance indicators within your assessment plan?
A Three-Pronged Model for Assessment Planning in Higher Education : A Three-Pronged Model for Assessment Planning in Higher Education Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis
To establish sound strategies and goals based on the internal and external environments
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
To specify customer requirements; prioritize them and try and get the most out of the “limited” resources
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC)
To develop performance indicators given the strategies and objectives resulting from the SWOT and QFD analyses
SWOT Analysis : SWOT Analysis Identify and evaluate internally and externally the following:
Economic, social, political and technological aspects
Internal
Strengths
Weaknesses
External
Opportunities
Threats
SWOT Analysis – Example (Accounting, B.A.) : SWOT Analysis – Example (Accounting, B.A.)
Benefits of the SWOT Analysis to Assessment Planning in Higher Education : Benefits of the SWOT Analysis to Assessment Planning in Higher Education Enhances analysis of internal and external environment
Assists in assessing the relevance of program’s mission statement
Enhances the ability to develop meaningful goals, student learning outcomes and measurement approaches
Quality Function Deployment (QFD): Structural Framework : Quality Function Deployment (QFD): Structural Framework Anticipates, identifies, prioritizes and focuses on key stakeholders' expectations, which leads to higher customer satisfaction and an increased competitive advantage
Considers present needs and future expectations of all stakeholders, which answers the question “What”
Hones strengths and opportunities of the organization, which addresses the question of “How”
Identifies system bottlenecks and enhances future implementation of proposed changes
QFD - House of Quality : QFD - House of Quality Resources Stakeholder Expectations Priorities Inter-relationship Inter-relationship Relationship Matrix Targets Benchmarking
House of Quality – Example in (Accounting, BA) : House of Quality – Example in (Accounting, BA)
Benefits of QFD to Assessment Planning in Higher Education : Benefits of QFD to Assessment Planning in Higher Education The focus remains on stakeholder needs
Enhances the probability of defining meaningful goals to achieve stakeholder (students, faculty, staff, parents, employers, accrediting bodies, legislators, etc.) expectations
The institution’s commitment to stakeholders’ satisfaction is enhanced as they realize that their input is valued in the goal and target-setting process
QFD generates awareness and appreciation of the academic program among all of the stakeholders
Balanced Scorecard (BSC): Structural Framework : Balanced Scorecard (BSC): Structural Framework Considers organization’s strategies and goals
Considers final outcome and other perspectives
Considers leading indicators as the drivers of the final outcome
Promotes a cause-and-effect relationships between measures
Four Perspectives in the Balanced Scorecard (BSC*) (Accounting, B.A.) : Four Perspectives in the Balanced Scorecard (BSC*) (Accounting, B.A.) Outcomes Measures Student Satisfaction Internal Processes Learning & Growth Percentage of Students employed within six months of graduation * Satisfaction with Career Advising Services
* Rate of Increase in Industry Partnerships
* Alumni giving rate Participation rate in:
* Employment fairs * Career Exploration workshops
* Adapted from Kaplan and Norton, 1992
Benefits of BSC to Assessment Planning in Higher Education : Benefits of BSC to Assessment Planning in Higher Education Develops performance measures (leading performance indicators) in three other perspectives affecting the student learning outcomes
Promotes achievement of student learning outcomes
The UCF Assessment Process Timeline : The UCF Assessment Process Timeline
How Does the Three-Pronged Model Work? : How Does the Three-Pronged Model Work? Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) Get involved Plan Develop learning
outcomes Select data
collection approach Examine, share,
act on findings Re-examine
the process A
c
t
i
o
n P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g An Assessment Process Model
(Adapted from Palomba and Banta, 1999) Resources information Stakeholders expectations and priorities Develop leading performance indicators to monitor the process (action) Establish student-learning outcomes (planning) Analyzes academic program's current environments in key impact areas and available resources. Identify key stakeholders' expectations and the type of relationship between them; prioritize expectations
Summary of the Benefits of the Three-Pronged Assessment Model : Summary of the Benefits of the Three-Pronged Assessment Model The QFD model enhances the assessment planning process by leading to answers to the questions on “what” stakeholders expect and prioritizes the fulfillment of those expectations while considering limited resources and capabilities. It also aids in monitoring the process for improvement
Conducting the SWOT analysis regularly ensures that all critical forces are considered, both internally and externally, during the development of goals, learning outcomes and the implementation of improvements
Summary of the Benefits of the Three-Pronged Assessment Model (Cont.) : Summary of the Benefits of the Three-Pronged Assessment Model (Cont.) The BSC model enhances the assessment action phase of the assessment process by establishing a set of performance indicators to promote and monitor achievement of stakeholder satisfaction
The implementation of this proposed model enhances the viability of the assessment process, thus increasing the potential for identifying weaknesses and subsequently making needed improvements.
Each of the models can be used separately, however, the use of all three provides an integrated approach to ensure assessment success
References : References Brown, S.; Glasner, A. (1999). Assessment matters in higher education: choosing and using diverse approaches. Philadelphia: SRHE and Open University Press.
Bryson, M. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kaplan, R. S.; Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance, Harvard Business Review, 70, 71-79.
Kaplan, R. S.; Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kolarik, W. J. (1995). Quality planning and QFD, quality: concepts, systems, strategies and tools. New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 215-241.
Lee, S. F.; Sai On Ko, A. (2000). Building balanced scorecard with SWOT analysis, and implementing “Sun Tzu’s the art of business management strategies” on QFD methodology, Managerial Auditing Journal, 15, 68-76.
Palomba, C. A.; Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing and Improving Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Pitman, G.; Motwani. J.; Kumar A., Cheng C. H. (1996). “QFD Application in an educational setting: a pilot field study. MCB University Press Ltd.
Rowley, D.J.; Lujan, H. D.; Dolence, M. G. (1998). Strategic Choices for the Academy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Questions : Questions
?
OEAS Website: http://www.oeas.ucf.edu/
Assessment Website: http://www.oeas.ucf.edu/default.html