Post on 31-Mar-2015
Crossing the Silos: Assessment Between and Within Academic and Student Affairs
Dr. Kerry Lynn Levett
CSPA-NYS
Outcomes of this session
• Delineate & identify practice model at participants’ institutions– Map assessment process for both models including
standardizing reporting
• Identify the pro’s/con’s of each assessment model
• Define learning outcomes to cross silos• Develop strategies for balancing the
assessment “playing field” for both silos• Create a roadmap for transitioning from the
parallel to collaborative practice model
Engagement Activity
Institutional Variations
• Public vs. Private– Process autonomy
• 2 yr vs. 4 year– Time to teach learn observe attainment of SLO
Many silos, one mission
• Academic Affairs– Structured (class,
department, gen eds, SLO
– Intentional– Student population– Often quantitative
questions– Historically focused
on cognitive gains*– “thinkers”*
• Student Affairs– Structured
(department, SLO, efficiencies, satisfaction
– Intentional & unintentional
– Sub-populations– Often qualitative and
quantitative questions– Historically focused
on affective gains* but shifting
– “doers”**Source: Bresciani, Zelna, & Anderson, 2004)
An Assessment Cycle Model
•Delivering curriculum, programs, and services
•Asking Questions •Collecting data•Analyzing data
•Defines who we are and what we do
•Uniqueness and sameness
•Improve student learning & the student experience
•Recommending or implementing policy and practice changes
Decision Making
Mission & Values
Implementing Goals & Attaining
Outcomes
Assessing
Collaborative Assessment Model• Structure
– One committee– One process– Reporting: same timeline, same format
• Mission & Values– Directly tackle institutional mission– Some values are tough to impart/measure in
classroom, can be focused out of classroom
• Implementing Goals & Outcomes– College goals & SLO can be jointly defined
• Assessing– May be collaborative, may be department based
(depends on the questions)
• Decision Making– Allows for campus wide approach to improvement
Collaborative Model
Pro’s1. Holistic
understanding of student learning
2. Minimize redundancy & “assessment burnout” of students
3. Share resources, sources, and results in challenging all to assess better
4. Chance to develop a common language
5. Accreditation
Con’s1. Hard (i.e.
scheduling)
2. Greater time commitment
3. Danger: spend more time on process, less time in practice
4. Requires greater understanding of each other before starting the process
5. Academic units can overshadow Student Affairs
Parallel Assessment Model
• Structure– Typically 2 separate committees and/or separate
processes– May have shared facilitator
• Mission & Values– May be distinct parts of institutional mission
“assigned” to different silos
• Implementing Goals & Outcomes– Often define differently
• Assessing– Departmental/divisional
• Decision Making– localized
Parallel Model
Pro’s1. Easier
2. Allows for customization and emphasizing nuances in each silo
3. More nimble in making changes
Con’s1. Potentially missing a
chasm of student learning & experience
2. Need more trained facilitators (need someone in both silos)
3. Danger: group think
4. Minimal shared information and resources
5. Perpetuates the silo mentality
Other Examples
Collaborative• Assessment Committee
– Representative from both silos
• Committee reported to Cabinet
• Jointly hired (search committee/process)
• Jointly defined SLO
Parallel• Academic Assessment
Committee– Faculty only
• Committee reports to Faculty Senate
• Position faculty • Different definitions of
SLO– No Student Affairs
input in determining SLO
Strategies for balancing the assessment “playing field”• Student affairs practitioners must learn the
language & education faculty in out of class learning – faculty must recognize SA practitioners as educators
• Identify and use allies• insert yourself in processes• Be an assessment scholar-practitioner
On the road: From parallel to collaborative models• Divide into pairs
– Identify the type of model you currently have and how well it is working
– Identify at least 3 changes that could be implemented on your campus to move toward or improve the collaborative model
Group Discussion