 |
 |
|
Table of Contents
Survey Participants 5
College Demographic Information 23
College Demographic Information 23
Summary of Main Findings 24
Chapter 1: Departmental Assessment 24
Developing an Assessment Plan 24
Assessment Plan 24
Assessment Office 24
Use of Software to Aid in Assessment 24
Chapter 2: Standardized Testing 25
Remedial Courses 25
Payout for Standardized Testing 26
Chapter 3: Assessment Office 26
Office 26
Full Time Assessment Employees 27
Assessment Office Salary Range 27
Assessment Office Size 27
Annual Assessment Office Budget 27
Assessment Professionals Working Outside of the Main Assessment Office 28
Size of the Basic Instructor Evaluation Form 28
Chapter 4: Student Assessment of Instructors 29
Questionnaires 29
Impact of Student Assessment Questionnaires on Tenure Decisions. 29
Impact of Student Faculty Assessment Questionnaires on the Hiring and Retention Regarding Adjunct Instructors. 30
Formats Used for the Completion of Student Assessment Questionnaires 30
Impact of Student Course Evaluations on Merit Pay Increases for Instructors 31
Chapter 5: Evaluation of adjunct faculty 32
Courses Taught by adjunct faculty 32
Methods of Evaluating adjunct faculty 32
Policy Towards Determining The Evaluation of adjunct faculty 33
The Evaluation of Adjunct Instructors 33
The Use of Student Evaluation Forms in Evaluating Adjunct Instructors 33
The Use of Standardized Tests in Evaluating Adjunct Instructors 34
The Use of In Class Visits by Full-Time Professors in Evaluating Adjunct Instructors 34
Evaluating Instructors 34
The Use of Student Evaluation Forms in Evaluating Instructors 34
The Use of Standardized Tests to Evaluate Learning in Chosen Majors in Evaluating Instructors 35
The Use of Standardized Tests Provided by Testing Companies to Obtain Results to Compare to National Data in Evaluating Instructors 35
The Use of In Class Visits by Full-Time Professors or Other Evaluators in Evaluating Instructors 35
Chapter 6: Faculty Involvement in Assessment 35
Role of College Faculty in Developing the College’s Assessment Vehicles 35
Faculty Views on Assessment Efforts 36
Centers to Develop Faculty Teaching Skills 36
Approximate Annual Assessment Office Spending 36
Policy to Link Instructor Compensation to Documented Increases in Teaching Effectiveness 36
Chapter 7: Tutoring 37
Tutoring or Student Learning Center 37
Location of the Tutoring or Learning Center 37
Chapter 8: Assessing Student Services 37
Chapter 9: Assessment Environment 37
Chapter 10: Curriculum Changes 37
Chapter 11: Benchmarking Data 37
The Purchase of Student Performance Benchmarking Data 37
Colleges that use ZOOMERANG 38
Colleges that use WEAVEONLINE 38
Colleges that use SURVEYMONKEY 38
Colleges that use WEBSURVEYOR 38
Colleges that use STUDENTVOICE 38
Colleges that use KEY SURVEY 38
Colleges that use SURVEY TRACKER 38
Colleges that use SNAP 38
Colleges that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE 38
Colleges that use ULTIMATE SURVEY 38
Chapter 12: Use of Consultants and Services 39
Spending on Outside Consultants and Services Related to Assessment 39
Conferences Devoted to Assessment that Administrators Attended in the Past Year 39
Chapter 13: Post Graduate Assessment 39
Colleges with a Post Graduate Assessment Program 39
Interviews of Students Who Graduate 39
Interviews of Students Who Transfer Out of College 39
Interviews of Students Who Drop Out of College 39
Number of Exit Interviews for Graduating Students 39
Exit Interviews Conducted With Students Who Left the College For Any Reason 40
Compensation for Students That Take Exit Interviews 40
Chapter 1: Departmental Assessment 41
Chapter 2: Standardized Testing 53
Chapter 3: Assessment Office 61
Chapter 4: Student Assessment of Instructors 69
Chapter 5: Evaluation of adjunct faculty 74
Chapter 6: Faculty Involvement in Assessment 83
Chapter 7: Tutoring 89
Chapter 8: Assessing Student Services 91
Chapter 9: Assessment Environment 92
Chapter 10: Curriculum Changes 93
Chapter 11: Benchmarking Data 95
Chapter 12: Use of Consultants and Services 104
Chapter 13: Post Graduation Assessment 107
Chapter 14: Assessing Assessment 114
Other Reports by Primary Research Group, Inc. 118
Survey Particpants
Amarillo College
Andrews University
Arizona State University
Auburn University (Main Campus)
Bethel University
Brookdale Community College
Brookhaven College
C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University
California State University, East Bay
Capella University
Chicago State University
Clearwater Christian College
Colegio Universitario de San Juan
College of Charleston
College of the Mainland
College of Wooster
Cornerstone University
Crafton Hills College
CSU Sacramento
Durham Technical Community College
East Tennessee State University
El Centro College
Elon U
Florida Community College at Jacksonville
Florida Gulf Coast University
Fort Lewis College
Gallaudet University
Hostos Community College
Hunter College, CUNY
Huston-Tillotson University
Illinois State University
Indiana University Kokomo
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Indiana Wesleyan University
Ivy Tech Community College
James Madison University
Lake Forest College
Lesley University
Louisiana State University
Malaspina University-College
Marquette University
Mercyhurst College
Middle Tennessee State University
Mount Union College
Mount Vernon Nazarene University
North Carolina State University
Northern Illinois University
Oakland University
Occidental College
Paul Smiths College
Radford University
Rich Mountain Community College
Rockford College
Saint Mary's University of Minnesota
Sam Houston State University
Seton Hall University
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University
St. Bonaventure University
Tacoma Community College
The University of Texas at Tyler
Tri-State University
University of California, Santa Barbara
University of North Carolina, Wilmington
University of Delaware
University of Evansville
University of Mobile
University of Nebraska College of Medicine
University of New Hampshire
University of North Dakota
University of St. Thomas
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
University of Toledo
University of Virginia
University of Toledo
University of Texas, Austin
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Walsh University
Warren Wilson College
Washington State University
Wayne State College
West Texas A&M University
Western Carolina University
William Penn
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Percentage of colleges in the sample that require that academic departments develop an assessment plan identifying key concepts and ideas that students should master 41
Table 1.2: Percentage of colleges in the sample that require that academic departments develop an assessment plan identifying key concepts and ideas that students should master, Broken Out by Type of College 41
Table 1.3: Percentage of colleges in the sample that require that academic departments develop an assessment plan identifying key concepts and ideas that students should master, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 41
Table 1.4: Percentage of colleges in the sample that require that academic departments develop an assessment plan identifying key concepts and ideas that students should master, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 41
Table 1.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum percentage of the major departments in the college that have developed a detailed assessment plan 42
Table 1.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Maximum percentage of the major departments in the college that have developed a detailed assessment plan, Broken Out by Type of College 42
Table 1.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Maximum percentage of the major departments in the college that have developed a detailed assessment plan, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 42
Table 1.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum percentage of the major departments in the college that have developed a detailed assessment plan, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 42
Table 1.9: Percentage of college's Assessment Office (or other office entrusted with this task) that communicate with academic departments through designated assessment coordinators in the various academic departments 43
Table 1.10: Percentage of college’s Assessment Office (or other office entrusted with this task) that communicate with academic departments through designated assessment coordinators in the various academic departments, Broken Out by Type of College 43
Table 1.11: Percentage of college’s Assessment Office (or other office entrusted with this task) that communicate with academic departments through designated assessment coordinators in the various academic departments, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 43
Table 1.12: Percentage of college’s Assessment Office (or other office entrusted with this task) that communicate with academic departments through designated assessment coordinators in the various academic departments, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 43
Table 1.13: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package ACT 44
Table 1.14: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package ACT, Broken Out by Type of College 44
Table 1.15: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package ACT, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 44
Table 1.16: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package ACT, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 44
Table 1.17: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package Accuplacer 44
Table 1.18: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package Accuplacer, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 45
Table 1.19: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package Accuplacer, Broken Out by Type of College 45
Table 1.20: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package Accuplacer, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 45
Table 1.21: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package COMPASS 45
Table 1.22: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package COMPASS, Broken Out by Type of College 45
Table 1.23: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package COMPASS, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 46
Table 1.24: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package COMPASS, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 46
Table 1.25: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Mathematics Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen 46
Table 1.26: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Mathematics Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Type of College 46
Table 1.27: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Mathematics Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 46
Table 1.28: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Mathematics Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 47
Table 1.29: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Reading Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen 47
Table 1.30: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Reading Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Type of College 47
Table 1.31: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Reading Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 47
Table 1.32: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Reading Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 47
Table 1.33: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Writing Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen 48
Table 1.34: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Writing Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Type of College 48
Table 1.35: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Writing Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 48
Table 1.36: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Writing Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 48
Table 1.37: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the NSSE 48
Table 1.38: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the NSSE, Broken Out by Type of College 49
Table 1.39: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the NSSE, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 49
Table 1.40: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the NSSE, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 49
Table 1.41: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the HERI 49
Table 1.42: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the HERI, Broken Out by Type of College 49
Table 1.43: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the HERI, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 50
Table 1.44: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the HERI, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 50
Table 1.45: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used data from Educational Benchmarking, Inc. 50
Table 1.46: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used data from Educational Benchmarking, Inc., Broken Out by Type of College 50
Table 1.47: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used data from Educational Benchmarking, Inc., Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 50
Table 1.48: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used data from Educational Benchmarking, Inc., Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 51
Table 1.49: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the Center for Education Assessment 51
Table 1.50: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the Center for Education Assessment, Broken Out by Type of College 51
Table 1.51: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the Center for Education Assessment, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 51
Table 1.52: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the Center for Education Assessment, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 51
Table 1.53: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used Chalk & Wire EPortfolio 52
Table 1.54: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used Chalk & Wire Eportfolio, Broken Out by Type of College 52
Table 1.55: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used Chalk & Wire Eportfolio, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 52
Table 1.56: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used Chalk & Wire Eportfolio, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 52
Table 2.1: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in WRITING for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum 53
Table 2.2: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in WRITING for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Type of College 53
Table 2.3: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in WRITING for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 53
Table 2.4: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in WRITING for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 53
Table 2.5: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in STUDY SKILLS for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum 54
Table 2.6: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in STUDY SKILLS for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Type of College 54
Table 2.7: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in STUDY SKILLS for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 54
Table 2.8: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in STUDY SKILLS for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 54
Table 2.9: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum 55
Table 2.10: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Type of College 55
Table 2.11: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 55
Table 2.12: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 55
Table 2.13: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in MATHEMATICS for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum 56
Table 2.14: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in MATHEMATICS for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Type of College 56
Table 2.15: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in MATHEMATICS for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 56
Table 2.16: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in MATHEMATICS for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 56
Table 2.17: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in INFORMATION/COMPUTER LITERACY for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum 57
Table 2.18: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in INFORMATION/COMPUTER LITERACY for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Type of College 57
Table 2.19: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in INFORMATION/COMPUTER LITERACY for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 57
Table 2.20: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that offer remedial or developmental courses in INFORMATION/COMPUTER LITERACY for students who do not perform well enough on standardized tests to take the normal college curriculum, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 57
Table 2.21: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum that colleges in the sample spent to pay students to take standardized tests that are primarily used within the college to aid it in its assessment efforts in $ U.S. 58
Table 2.22: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum That colleges in the sample spent to pay students to take standardized tests that are primarily used within the college to aid it in its assessment efforts in $ U.S., Broken Out by Type of College 58
Table 2.23: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum That colleges in the sample spent to pay students to take standardized tests that are primarily used within the college to aid it in its assessment efforts in $ U.S., Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 58
Table 2.24: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum That colleges in the sample spent to pay students to take standardized tests that are primarily used within the college to aid it in its assessment efforts in $ U.S., Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 58
Table 2.25: Percentage of colleges sampled that offer a higher rate of pay or reward to students that score higher on standardized assessment tests, on the theory that this encourages full student effort 59
Table 2.26: Percentage of colleges sampled that offer a higher rate of pay or reward to students that score higher on standardized assessment tests, on the theory that this encourages full student effort, Broken Out by Type of College 59
Table 2.27: Percentage of colleges sampled that offer a higher rate of pay or reward to students that score higher on standardized assessment tests, on the theory that this encourages full student effort, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 59
Table 2.28: Percentage of colleges sampled that offer a higher rate of pay or reward to students that score higher on standardized assessment tests, on the theory that this encourages full student effort, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 60
Table 3.2: Percentage of colleges that have an office of assessment or similar office or department that primarily devotes itself to assessment 61
Table 3.3: Percentage of colleges that have an office of assessment or similar office or department that primarily devotes itself to assessment, Broken Out by Type of College 61
Table 3.4: Percentage of colleges that have an office of assessment or similar office or department that primarily devotes itself to assessment, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 61
Table 3.5: Percentage of colleges that have an office of assessment or similar office or department that primarily devotes itself to assessment, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 62
Table 3.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum of Full Time Employees in the sample college's office of assessment, or similar office that is primarily devoted to this function 62
Table 3.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Of Full Time Employees in the sample college’s office of assessment, or similar office that is primarily devoted to this function, Broken Out by Type of College 62
Table 3.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Of Full Time Employees in the sample college’s office of assessment, or similar office that is primarily devoted to this function, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 62
Table 3.9: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Of Full Time Employees in the sample college’s office of assessment, or similar office that is primarily devoted to this function, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 63
Table 3.10: Sample college’s annual salary range for the highest ranking assessment officer 63
Table 3.11: Sample college’s annual salary range for the highest ranking assessment officer, Broken Out by Type of College 63
Table 3.12: Sample college’s annual salary range for the highest ranking assessment officer, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 63
Table 3.13: Sample college’s annual salary range for the highest ranking assessment officer, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 64
Table 3.14: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum of size of college assessment office for colleges in the sample, in square feet 64
Table 3.15: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Of size of college assessment office for colleges in the sample, in square feet, Broken Out by Type of College 64
Table 3.16: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Of size of college assessment office for colleges in the sample, in square feet, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 64
Table 3.17: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Of size of college assessment office for colleges in the sample, in square feet, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 65
Table 3.18: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum of annual budget, for colleges in the sample, of the assessment office, including salaries and overhead 65
Table 3.19: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum of annual budget, for colleges in the sample, of the assessment office, including salaries and overhead, Broken Out by Type of College 65
Table 3.20: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum of annual budget, for colleges in the sample, of the assessment office, including salaries and overhead., Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 65
Table 3.21: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum of annual budget, for colleges in the sample, of the assessment office, including salaries and overhead, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 66
Table 3.22: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum, for colleges in the sample, of assessment professionals working in other offices outside of the main college assessment office 66
Table 3.23: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum, for colleges in the sample, of assessment professionals working in other offices outside of the main college assessment office, Broken Out by Type of College 66
Table 3.24: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum , for colleges in the sample, of assessment professionals working in other offices outside of the main college assessment office, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 66
Table 3.25: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum, for colleges in the sample, of assessment professionals working in other offices outside of the main college assessment office, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 67
Table 3.26: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum, for colleges in the sample, of questions that the basic instructor evaluation form that is handed to students has 67
Table 3.27: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum , for colleges in the sample, of questions that the basic instructor evaluation form that is handed to students has, Broken Out by Type of College 67
Table 3.28: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum , for colleges in the sample, of questions that the basic instructor evaluation form that is handed to students has, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 67
Table 3.29: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum , for colleges in the sample, of questions that the basic instructor evaluation form that is handed to students has, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 68
Table 4.1: Description of college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors 69
Table 4.2: Description of college’s policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 69
Table 4.3: Description of college’s policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 69
Table 4.4: Description of college’s policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 69
Table 4.5: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions 70
Table 4.6: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions, Broken Out by Type of College 70
Table 4.7: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 70
Table 4.8: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 70
Table 4.9: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on the hiring and retention decisions regarding ADJUNCT instructors 71
Table 4.10: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on the hiring and retention decisions regarding ADJUNCT instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 71
Table 4.11: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on the hiring and retention decisions regarding ADJUNCT instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 71
Table 4.12: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on the hiring and retention decisions regarding ADJUNCT instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 71
Table 4.13: Description of formats used for the completion of student assessment questionnaires 72
Table 4.14: Description of formats used for the completion of student assessment questionnaires, Broken Out by Type of College 72
Table 4.15: Description of formats used for the completion of student assessment questionnaires, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 72
Table 4.16: Description of formats used for the completion of student assessment questionnaires, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 72
Table 4.17: Description of the impact of student course evaluations on merit pay increases for instructors 73
Table 4.18: Description of the impact of student course evaluations on merit pay increases for instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 73
Table 4.19: Description of the impact of student course evaluations on merit pay increases for instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 73
Table 4.20: Description of the impact of student course evaluations on merit pay increases for instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 73
Table 5.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum, for colleges in the sample, of the percentage of courses taught by adjunct faculty 74
Table 5.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum, for colleges in the sample, of the percentage of courses taught by adjunct faculty, Broken Out by Type of College 74
Table 5.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum , for colleges in the sample, of the percentage of courses taught by adjunct faculty, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 74
Table 5.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum , for colleges in the sample, of the percentage of courses taught by adjunct faculty, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 74
Table 5.5: Description of the method for evaluating adjunct faculty 75
Table 5.6: Description of the method for evaluating adjunct faculty, Broken Out by Type of College 75
Table 5.7: Description of the method for evaluating adjunct faculty, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 75
Table 5.8: Description of the method for evaluating adjunct faculty, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 75
Table 5.9: Description of college's policy towards determining the evaluation of ADJUNCT instructors 76
Table 5.10: Description of college’s policy towards determining the evaluation of ADJUNCT instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 76
Table 5.11: Description of college’s policy towards determining the evaluation of ADJUNCT instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 76
Table 5.12: Description of college’s policy towards determining the evaluation of ADJUNCT instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 77
Table 5.13: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate adjunct instructors 77
Table 5.14: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 77
Table 5.15: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 77
Table 5.16: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 78
Table 5.17: Percentage of colleges that commonly use standardized tests to evaluate adjunct instructors 78
Table 5.18: Percentage of colleges that commonly use standardized tests to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 78
Table 5.19: Percentage of colleges that commonly use standardized tests to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 78
Table 5.20: Percentage of colleges that commonly use standardized tests to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 78
Table 5.21: Percentage of colleges that commonly use in class visits by full-time professors to evaluate adjunct instructors 79
Table 5.22: Percentage of colleges that commonly use in class visits by full-time professors to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 79
Table 5.23: Percentage of colleges that commonly use in class visits by full-time professors to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 79
Table 5.24: Percentage of colleges that commonly use in class visits by full-time professors to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 79
Table 5.25: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate instructors 79
Table 5.26: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 80
Table 5.27: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 80
Table 5.28: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 80
Table 5.29: Percentage of colleges that commonly use Standardized Tests to Evaluate Learning in Chosen Majors, to evaluate instructors 80
Table 5.30: Percentage of colleges that commonly use Standardized Tests to Evaluate Learning in Chosen Majors, to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 80
Table 5.31: Percentage of colleges that commonly use Standardized Tests to Evaluate Learning in Chosen Majors, to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 81
Table 5.32: Percentage of colleges that commonly use Standardized Tests to Evaluate Learning in Chosen Majors, to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 81
Table 5.33: Percentage of colleges that commonly use Standardized Tests Provided by Testing Companies to Obtain Results to Compare to National Data to evaluate instructors 81
Table 5.34: Percentage of colleges that commonly use Standardized Tests Provided by Testing Companies to Obtain Results to Compare to National Data to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 81
Table 5.35: Percentage of colleges that commonly use Standardized Tests Provided by Testing Companies to Obtain Results to Compare to National Data to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 81
Table 5.36: Percentage of colleges that commonly use Standardized Tests Provided by Testing Companies to Obtain Results to Compare to National Data to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 82
Table 5.37: Percentage of colleges that commonly use In Class Visits by Full time professors or instructors or other evaluators to evaluate instructors 82
Table 5.38: Percentage of colleges that commonly use In Class Visits by Full time professors or instructors or other evaluators to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Type of College 82
Table 5.39: Percentage of colleges that commonly use In Class Visits by Full time professors or instructors or other evaluators to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 82
Table 5.40: Percentage of colleges that commonly use In Class Visits by Full time professors or instructors or other evaluators to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 82
Table 6.1: Description of college faculty's role in developing the college's assessment vehicles 83
Table 6.2: Description of college faculty’s role in developing the college’s assessment vehicles, Broken Out by Type of College 83
Table 6.3: Description of college faculty’s role in developing the college’s assessment vehicles, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 83
Table 6.4: Description of college faculty’s role in developing the college’s assessment vehicles, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 84
Table 6.5: Description of college's faculty views on the assessment efforts of the college administration 84
Table 6.6: Description of college’s faculty views on the assessment efforts of the college administration, Broken Out by Type of College 84
Table 6.7: Description of college’s faculty views on the assessment efforts of the college administration, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 85
Table 6.8: Description of college’s faculty views on the assessment efforts of the college administration, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 85
Table 6.9: Percentage of colleges in the sample that have one or more centers to develop faculty teaching skills 85
Table 6.10: Percentage of colleges in the sample that have one or more centers to develop faculty teaching skills, Broken Out by Type of College 85
Table 6.11: Percentage of colleges in the sample that have one or more centers to develop faculty teaching skills, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 86
Table 6.12: Percentage of colleges in the sample that have one or more centers to develop faculty teaching skills, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 86
Table 6.13: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Approximate annual spending for staff, office space, software, and other costs for colleges in the sample that have such centers 86
Table 6.14: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Annual spending for staff, office space, software, and other costs for colleges in the sample that have such centers, Broken Out by Type of College 86
Table 6.15: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Annual spending for staff, office space, software, and other costs for colleges in the sample that have such centers, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 87
Table 6.16: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Annual spending for staff, office space, software, and other costs for colleges in the sample that have such centers, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 87
Table 6.17: Percentages of colleges in the sample that say they have a clear policy to link instructor compensation to documented increases in teaching effectiveness 87
Table 6.18: Percentages of colleges in the sample that say they have a clear policy to link instructor compensation to documented increases in teaching effectiveness, Broken Out by Type of College 87
Table 6.19: Percentages of colleges in the sample that say they have a clear policy to link instructor compensation to documented increases in teaching effectiveness, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 88
Table 6.20: Percentages of colleges in the sample that say they have a clear policy to link instructor compensation to documented increases in teaching effectiveness, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 88
Table 7.1: Percentage of colleges that have a tutoring or student learning center 89
Table 7.2: Percentage of colleges that have a tutoring or student learning center, Broken Out by Type of College 89
Table 7.3: Percentage of colleges that have a tutoring or student learning center, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 89
Table 7.4: Percentage of colleges that have a tutoring or student learning center, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 89
Table 7.5: Description of the location of the tutoring or learning center for colleges that have one 89
Table 7.6: Description of the location of the tutoring or learning center for colleges that have one, Broken Out by Type of College 90
Table 7.7: Description of the location of the tutoring or learning center for colleges that have one, Broken Out by Public or Private institutional status 90
Table 7.8: Description of the location of the tutoring or learning center for colleges that have one, Broken Out by Full time Equivalent Enrollment 90
Table 8.1: Percentage of colleges whose administration conduct student surveys of the satisfaction that students have with college student services such as the food service, dormitory services, bookstore, library, etc. 91
Table 8.2: Percentage of colleges whose administration conduct student surveys of the satisfaction that students have with college student services such as the food service, dormitory services, bookstore, library, etc. , Broken Out by Type of College 91
Table 8.3: Percentage of colleges whose administration conduct student surveys of the satisfaction that students have with college student services such as the food service, dormitory services, bookstore, library, etc. , Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 91
Table 8.4: Percentage of colleges whose administration conduct student surveys of the satisfaction that students have with college student services such as the food service, dormitory services, bookstore, library, etc. , Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 91
Table 9.1: Percentage of colleges sampled that offer an annual “Assessment Day” or “assessment workshop” or “Assessment Seminar” or its equivalent for faculty and staff 92
Table 9.2: Percentage of colleges sampled that offer an annual “Assessment Day” or “assessment workshop” or “Assessment Seminar” or its equivalent for faculty and staff. , Broken Out by Type of College 92
Table 9.3: Percentage of colleges sampled that offer an annual “Assessment Day” or “assessment workshop” or “Assessment Seminar” or its equivalent for faculty and staff. , Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 92
Table 9.4: Percentage of colleges sampled that offer an annual “Assessment Day” or “assessment workshop” or “Assessment Seminar” or its equivalent for faculty and staff. , Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 92
Table 10.1: Description of the success of assessment efforts for colleges sampled 93
Table 10.2: Description of the success of assessment efforts for colleges sampled, Broken Out by Type of College 93
Table 10.3: Description of the success of assessment efforts for colleges sampled, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 93
Table 10.4: Description of the success of assessment efforts for colleges sampled, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 94
Table 11.1: Percentage of colleges sampled that have ever purchased student performance benchmarking data to compare their students’ performance to that of national norms 95
Table 11.2: Percentage of colleges sampled that have ever purchased student performance benchmarking data to compare their students’ performance to that of national norms, Broken Out by Type of College 95
Table 11.3: Percentage of colleges sampled that have ever purchased student performance benchmarking data to compare their students’ performance to that of national norms, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 95
Table 11.4: Percentage of colleges sampled that have ever purchased student performance benchmarking data to compare their students’ performance to that of national norms, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 95
Table 11.5: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ZOOMERANG for assessment purposes 95
Table 11.6: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ZOOMERANG for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College 96
Table 11.7: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ZOOMERANG for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 96
Table 11.8: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ZOOMERANG for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 96
Table 11.9: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEAVEONLINE for assessment purposes 96
Table 11.10: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEAVEONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College 96
Table 11.11: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEAVEONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 97
Table 11.12: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEAVEONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 97
Table 11.13: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEYMONKEY for assessment purposes 97
Table 11.14: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEYMONKEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College 97
Table 11.15: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEYMONKEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 97
Table 11.16: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEYMONKEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 98
Table 11.17: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEBSURVEYOR for assessment purposes 98
Table 11.18: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEBSURVEYOR for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College 98
Table 11.19: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEBSURVEYOR for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 98
Table 11.20: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEBSURVEYOR for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 98
Table 11.21: Percentage of colleges sampled that use STUDENTVOICE for assessment purposes 99
Table 11.22: Percentage of colleges sampled that use STUDENTVOICE for assessment purposeS, Broken Out by Type of College 99
Table 11.23: Percentage of colleges sampled that use STUDENTVOICE for assessment purposeS, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 99
Table 11.24: Percentage of colleges sampled that use STUDENTVOICE for assessment purposeS, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 99
Table 11.25: Percentage of colleges sampled that use KEY SURVEY for assessment purposes 99
Table 11.26: Percentage of colleges sampled that use KEY SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College 100
Table 11.27: Percentage of colleges sampled that use KEY SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 100
Table 11.28: Percentage of colleges sampled that use KEY SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 100
Table 11.29: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEY TRACKER PLUS for assessment purposes 100
Table 11.30: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEY TRACKER PLUS for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College 100
Table 11.31: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEY TRACKER PLUS for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 101
Table 11.32: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEY TRACKER PLUS for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 101
Table 11.33: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SNAP for assessment purposes 101
Table 11.34: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SNAP for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College 101
Table 11.35: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SNAP for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 101
Table 11.36: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SNAP for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 102
Table 11.37: Percentage of colleges sampled that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE for assessment purposes 102
Table 11.38: Percentage of colleges sampled that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College 102
Table 11.39: Percentage of colleges sampled that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 102
Table 11.40: Percentage of colleges sampled that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 102
Table 11.41: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ULTIMATE SURVEY for assessment purposes 103
Table 11.42: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ULTIMATE SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College 103
Table 11.43: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ULTIMATE SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 103
Table 11.44: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ULTIMATE SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 103
Table 12.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum spending by college administration on outside consultants, reports, conferences and other consulting services related to assessment within the past Year 104
Table 12.2: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum spending by college administration on outside consultants, reports, conferences and other consulting services related to assessment within the past Year., Broken Out by Type of College 104
Table 12.3: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum spending by college administration on outside consultants, reports, conferences and other consulting services related to assessment within the past Year, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 104
Table 12.4: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum spending by college administration on outside consultants, reports, conferences and other consulting services related to assessment within the past Year, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 105
Table 12.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Approximate number of conferences devoted to Assessment issues that ADMNINSTRATORS from colleges surveyed attended in the past year 105
Table 12.6: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Approximate number of conferences devoted to Assessment issues that ADMNINSTRATORS from colleges surveyed attended in the past year, Broken Out by Type of College 105
Table 12.7: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Approximate number of conferences devoted to Assessment issues that ADMNINSTRATORS from colleges surveyed attended in the past year, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 105
Table 12.8: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum Approximate number of conferences devoted to Assessment issues that ADMNINSTRATORS from colleges surveyed attended in the past year, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 106
Table 13.1: Percentage of colleges surveyed that have a post graduate assessment program 107
Table 13.2: Percentage of colleges surveyed that have a post graduate assessment program, Broken Out by Type of College 107
Table 13.3: Percentage of colleges surveyed that have a post graduate assessment program, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 107
Table 13.4: Percentage of colleges surveyed that have a post graduate assessment program, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 107
Table 13.5: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO GRADUATE at least once per year 107
Table 13.6: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO GRADUATE at least once per year, Broken Out by Type of College 108
Table 13.7: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO GRADUATE at least once per year, Broken Out By Public or Private Institutional Status 108
Table 13.8: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO GRADUATE at least once per year, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 108
Table 13.9: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO TRANSFER OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year 108
Table 13.10: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO TRANSFER OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year, Broken Out by Type of College 109
Table 13.11: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO TRANSFER OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 109
Table 13.12: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO TRANSFER OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 109
Table 13.13: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year 109
Table 13.14: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year, Broken Out by Type of College 110
Table 13.15: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year , Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 110
Table 13.16: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 110
Table 13.17: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum approximate number of exit interviews conducted with graduating students for colleges in the sample that conducted such interviews 110
Table 13.18: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum approximate number of exit interviews conducted with graduating students for colleges in the sample that conducted such interviews, Broken Out by Type of College 111
Table 13.19: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum approximate number of exit interviews conducted with graduating students for colleges in the sample that conducted such interviews, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 111
Table 13.20: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum approximate number of exit interviews conducted with graduating students for colleges in the sample that conducted such interviews, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 111
Table 13.21: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum approximate number of exit interviews conducted with students who left the college for any reason in the past year for colleges in the sample that conducted such interviews 111
Table 13.22: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum approximate number of exit interviews conducted with students who left the college for any reason in the past year for colleges in the sample that conducted such interviews, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 112
Table 13.23: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum approximate number of exit interviews conducted with students who left the college for any reason in the past year for colleges in the sample that conducted such interviews, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 112
Table 13.24: Percentage of colleges that offer compensation of any kind for students that take exit interviews 112
Table 13.25: Percentage of colleges that offer compensation of any kind for students that take exit interviews, Broken Out by Type of College 112
Table 13.26: Percentage of colleges that offer compensation of any kind for students that take exit interviews, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status 112
Table 13.27: Percentage of colleges that offer compensation of any kind for students that take exit interviews, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment 113
Back
© Primary Research Group 
