This report summarizes accountability, productivity, and quality enhancements within the
Illinois community college system, including highlights from reports prepared by the system's
49 colleges, systemwide analyses conducted by Illinois Community College Board (ICCB), and
state-level accountability and productivity initiatives. Following an executive summary and
brief introduction, the next major section presents college productivity reports for the following
functions: instruction, academic and student support, overall academic function, administration,
and public service. The next section presents college responses to a series of questions from the
Illinois Board of Higher Education related to the use of benchmarks, cooperative arrangements,
auxiliary enterprises, intercollegiate athletics, staffing analysis, low-enrollment programs,
and cost analysis. Next, the report provides the results of seven studies conducted by the ICCB
on administrative costs, student retention, minority achievement, remedial education, community
college auxiliary enterprise funds, and transfer rates. The next section outlines state-level
accountability and productivity initiatives including a review of state-level processes and
procedures; goals for 1993-94 in the areas of accountability, articulation, teaching and learning,
telecommunications, workforce preparation, and community college advocacy. Appendixes making up
two-thirds of the report include detailed tables describing college productivity improvement,
administrative costs, retention study results, minority achievement, transfer rate, and auxiliary
enterprise funds.

This annual report provides an overview of Arapahoe Community College's (Colorado)
efforts to improve undergraduate education and the success of those efforts as of 1993-94.
After outlining changes made in the transfer, vocational education, and developmental studies
programs, the report provides information on specific recommendations implemented since
1992-93 related to vocational education; retention and completion; alumni satisfaction; after
graduation performance; graduating students satisfaction; community education; and business
and industr y se rvices. Appendixes comprise the bulk of the report, providing data and
survey results related to the following: (1) a 1993-94 calculus readiness test; (2) college algebra
instructional strategies; (3) a student self-evaluation communication survey and instructor ratings
of student improvement in speech; (4) guidelines for English instructors and results from surveys
of students confidence in their writing ability; (5) transfer accountability projects; (6) two pilot
studies in developmental English; (7) a developmental reading survey; (8) a developmental mathematics
tracking analysis; (9) minority student enrollment comparisons, 1992-94; (10) results of licensure exams,
1993-94; (11) a vocational education student satisfaction survey; (12) a graduate employer survey;
(13) term-to-term retention/persistence rates for full-time, part-time, and all students; (14) transfer
acceptance, grade point averages, and completion/persistence rates for selected years from 1988-89 to
1993-94; (15) graduating student satisfaction levels; (16) community education satisfaction levels; and
(17) business and industry student satisfaction reports.

Theme issue: Assessing Performance in an Age of Accountability: Case Studies.
Budget reforms adopted at the University of Montana and by the Arkansas state higher
education system illustrate a variety of strategies for long-range planning. These efforts
include reform of faculty collective bargaining, funding b ased on productivity enhancement,
and a multiyear fiscal plan encompassing both operating and capital budgets.

Student learning, perhaps the best measure of exemplary teaching, can be examined
indirectlythrough correlated measures of teaching. Guidelines for good practice in assessment
of teaching include use of multiple methods; assessment of multiple dimensions of learning;
use of multiple assessors; distinguishing qualities best assessed by the teacher, students,
disciplinary peers, and campus colleagues; and assessment over time.

This study evaluated student preparation for a course in calculus for business, management,
and social sciences as a prerequisite for success in probability theory. The study included
a review of the literature, development of an assessment instrument and cut-off scores, and
review and validation of the study criteria, the assessment instrument, and the cut-off scores.
A 33-item questionnaire was administered during the 1997 spring semester to 20 students
enrolled in a probability theory course at Orange Coast College (California). The students
had completed a course in calculus for business, management, and social sciences. Results
of the study indicated that although students showed weakness in four instructional
objectives: implicit differentiation, calculus applications to probability, numerical
techniques, and proof construction, they nevertheless were deemed adequately prepared for
the probability theory course. Appended are calculus course instructional objectives, the
proficiency criteria developed, a diagnostic student assessment examination in calculus, and
a data/assessment results table.

Community college reform legislation in California mandates the development and implementation
of a comprehensive accountability model. The reform model implemented during the 1991-92
academic year will provide the legislature and state officials without comes and process
data in five areas of community college services: student access, student success, student
satisfaction, staff composition, and fiscal condition. The overall intent of this reform
is to improve teaching and lea rning at community colleges. Uses for accountability reform
include public relations; inter-college and district comparisons; program review and evaluation;
campus budgets; and monitoring local indicators. The literature suggests that currently designed
reform measures may not reach these intended goals. To increase the likelihood of successful
implementation, institutional assessment should be driven by teaching and learning goals, and
indicators should include more than outcomes-only data. Outcomes indicators might best be composite
indicators comprised of collegiate context, student characteristics, process, and environmental
variables measured longitudinally. The proposed model for accountability uses indicators not as
barometers of effectiveness, but indicative of the conditions that facilitate positive change.
Contains 15 references.

Neosho Community College (NCC) in Kansas developed an assessment program to measure
changes in student learning and progress in courses and programs. The specific objectives
of student assessment at NCC are to determine readiness for regular college courses; to
determine proper placement; to assist students in meeting personal objectives; and to improve
the effectiveness of curricular offerings. The primary areas assessed are commu nications,
math, natural and physical sciences, and social and behavioral sciences. All first-time,
full-time students taking 12 or more hours are tested, a nd if a student fails to meet the
pre-established levels, he/she is required to enroll in the appropriate class or classes for
remediation. First-time, full-time students are also required to complete a general education
pre-test at a designated time. Primary instruments are the Collegiate Assessment of Academic
Proficiency (CAAP) and a writing sample. After completing their program of study, students
are retested as a requirement for graduation. In addition, e very course satisfying a graduation
requirement utilizes an instructor-determined measure of student gain to assess expected student
outcomes as stated in the syllabus. The assessment plan satisfies accreditation questions posed
by the North Central Association. For each of the components of the assessment plan, information
is provided on the office with primary responsibility, approximate costs, and target population
for testing.

A survey of 23 college and university coordinators who conduct assessment activities and
report findings in connection with Tennessee's 15-year performance funding initiative reveals
strengths and weaknesses associated with 10 indicators of institutional performance. Reasons
for the program's longevity, designed to serve accountability and improvement purposes, are
advanced.

This book applies the "Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning"
developed by the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) to 82 case examples
of assessment strategies being implemented at American institutions of higher education.
Part 1 presents 10 chapters each covering one of the nine AAHE principles (and an
additional principle proposed by the authors). Each of these chapters begins
with a statement of the principle, followed by discussion of the underlying
assumptions and rationale for the principle, then provides illustrations of the
principle in action in the various cases presented later in the book. Part 2 presents
the 82 full cases of assessment practice, originally obtained from a national survey of
375 institutions with representatives attending a recent conference on assessment.
Cases are presented in the words of faculty, student affairs professionals, and campus
assessment administrators who developed the procedures. They are grouped into six
sections: (1) "Assessing Student Achievement in the Major"; (2) "Assessing Student
Achievement in General Education"; (3) "Assessing Student Development and Progress";
(4) "Assessment at the Classroom Level"; (5) "Faculty Development to Promote Assessment";
and (6) "Developing a Campuswide Approach to the Assessment of Institutional Effectiveness."

The current state of student assessment in higher education in the United Kingdom is
examined, particularly in light of the introduction of government-sponsored, standardized
national vocational qualifications, marking a new stage of government intervention. A
review of current practice finds confusion about what to assess, how to assess it, and the
educational and professional consequences of those assessments.

Based on data submitted in September 1994 to the Florida Community College System for
its annual accountability report, this document compares accountability outcomes for
Miami-Dade Community College (M-DCC) to the system as a whole. Highlighted findings
include the following: (1) while 65% of the public high school graduates and 61% of new
community college students were White systemwide, only 21% of the high school graduates
and 13% of the community college students were White in M-DCC's Dade County; (2) the
success rate of M-DCC students after 4 years was 70%, lower than the systemwide rate of
72%, while M-DCC's graduation rate was 19%, compared to 23% systemwide; (3) the average
grade point average (GPA) of M-DCC graduates in the state university system was 2.72
compared to 2.77 systemwide, while 70% of White, 64% of Hispanics, and 52% of Black
non-Hispanics at M-DCC had a GPA at or above 2.5; (4) 89.3% of the students taking
licensure exams passed, and 91.1% of the associate degree students found a job related
to their education or continued their education; (5) 69% of M-DCC students failed
college-level entry tests, compared to 57% of community college students statewide; and
(6) on state academic skills tests, 66% of M-DCC students passed all four sections, compared
to a

This report presents the results of a survey of student assessment activities conducted by
departments at Boise State University in Idaho. The university's 55 departments were asked
to provide information on the evaluation process for their majors and for any core courses
they offered. The survey found that most of the departments had completed mission
statements and nearly three-fourths had goals and objectives for student learning. Less than
half, however, had developed plans that show where each goal is addressed, and only about
one-fourth have ways to measure how well each goal is being met. While over 90 percent
of departments indicated that they used program review, student surveys of courses and
faculty, and internships with performance feedback to collect assessment information, there
were many differences in which other methods they employed. Departments were not nearly
as advanced in developing assessment plans for the core courses they offered, with less than
half having completed mission statements and only 9 percent having ways to measure how
each goal is being met. Appendixes include a copy of the survey instrument and
departmental listings of the stages in the development of assessment processes.

In an effort to determine success in fosterin g student developm ent as w ell-rounded human-
beings, Northwestern Michigan College (NMC) undertook a st udy of stu dent achievement
related to significant learning outcomes esta blished by the c ollege. The study focused
on four measures of achievement: results from a spring 1995 administration of the Collegiate
Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), results from a spring 1995 American College Testing
College Outcomes Survey (COS) report, an NMC plan for assessing academic achievement, and
outcomes from an Instructional Development and Effectiveness Assessment (IDEA) conducted from
1990 to 1995. Study findings included the following: (1) on the CAAP, NMC students scored above
the national mean in each of four academic skills (i.e., writing, mathematics, reading, and critical
thinking); (2) regarding the COS, the learning outcome ranked highest by students was acquiring
knowledge and skills needed for a career, while this outcome was also ranked highest in terms of
students' self-assessment of progress; (3) NMC's assessment plan will be implemented over the coming
year; and (4) with respect to the IDEA, students consistently rated their learning in 10 areas
(i.e., gaining factual knowledge, learning principles and theories, developing professional skills,
learning a discipline's methodology, improving thinking and problem solving skills, developing
creative capacities and effective communication skills, gaining a general, liberal education,
developing personal responsibility, and furthering self-understanding) higher than the system-wide
norm. Results from the COS and CAAP are appended.

Dealing with issues related to the asse ssment of community colle ge acc ountability,
effectiveness, efficiency, productiv ity, student outcomes, and quality improvement,
this volume examines the pra ctical considerations of assessmen t fro m the perspectives
of state-level coordinating boards, accreditation agencies, college presidents, and institutional
administrators. The following articles are included: (1) "Assessment from the State Perspective,"
by Virginia K. McMillan; (2) "Latent and Leveraged Benefits of Assessment: Expanding the
Value of Assessment Information," by Stephen D. Spangehl; (3) "Assessment from a National
Perspective: Where Are We, Really?" by Jeffrey A. Seybert; (4) "Assessment and Transfer:
Unexamined Complexities," by Mary L. Mittler and Trudy H. Bers; (5)"Assessment from the
President's Perspective," by Richard Fonte; (6) "Obtaining StudentCooperation for Assessment,"
by Betty Duvall; (7) "Assessment and Diversity: Outcome and Climate Measurements," by
Scott P. Kerlin and Patricia B. Britz; (8) "QualitativeAssessment: An Institutional Reality
Check," by Mary L. Mittler and Trudy H. Bers; (9) "A Critical Review of Student Assessment
Options," by Joseph Prus and Reid Johnson; and (10)"Sources and Information: Assessment and the
Community College," by Elizabeth Foote.

 

Theme issue: Assessing Performance in an Age of Accountability: Case Studies.
A discussion of the performance indicator system used at the University of Wisconsin to
provide feedback to stakeholders and encourage continuous improvement of services
includes background on the system's context and development, legislative and governing
board involvement, resulting recommendations, and three examples of specific accountability
indicators and their goals.

Theme issue: "Using Performance Indicators to Guide Strategic Decision Making."
The history of performance indicators for evaluation of institutions of higher education
in the United States and Europe is chronicled to provide a context for understanding the
definitions and methods used to develop them. Perfo rmance indicators are defined and
described inrelation to other measures used for assessment of institutions, drawing on
relevant literature.

The effective ness of the Partnership for Academic and Career Education (PACE ) model tech
prep initiative was evaluated in a 2-year study conducted by the Academy for Educational
Development. Information for the evaluation was collected through site visits to 13 of the
20 secondary schools (9 high schools and 4 career centers) in the 3 counties participating
in the PACE consortium and 3 separate surveys administered to students, faculty, and staff
at the schools. The first two surveys were given to all graduating seniors (approximately
2,500 students in 16 schools) and all faculty and staff (730 individuals) in the spring
of 1993. The final survey was administered to a selected group of 400 of the originally
surveyed students 1 year after graduation. Three of the schools had well-developed tech
prep programs, and three had less-established programs. The surveys and site visits
confirmed the PACE model's claims that students will be more motivated in tech prep and
that staff in tech prep schools will see better results. (Eighteen tables/figures are
included. Appendixes constituting approximately 60% of the document contain 10 tables of
data about students not planning to attend a four-year college and the various surveys and
assessment inventories for tech prep implementation.)

In 1990, Massachusetts Bay Community College (MBCC) collaborated with six other Massachusetts
colleges to assist them in using MBCC's assessment program as a model to supplement or
replace their existing assessment strategi es. At eac h associate college, campus
coordinators were selected and assessment task forces were formed to identify assessment
issues pertinent to their institutions. Serving as lead college, MBCC hosted community
colleges from throughout the state for the American Association of Community Colleges
Teleconference, "Institutional Effectiveness: Look at Student Outcomes and Assuring
Institutional Success in Community, Technical and Junior Colleges," and developed a
series of regional professional development workshops on teaching and learning, and
assessment. Consistent with the mandate of the state regents, the assessment of reading,
writing, mathematics, and language skills was evaluated, and, in every instance, current
practices underwent extensive revision. Each associate college identified the need to
automate tracking, and two colleges completely re-engineered their assessment process for
incoming students based on the MBCC model. Assessment became a mandatory activity for all
full- and part-time matriculating students. The assessment program was expanded to
incorporate both entrance and exit components, and developmental coursework was identified
and sequenced. Each of the participating colleges experienced considerable disruption
between 1990 and 1993 because of the state's fiscal crisis and the subsequent reductions
in financial support. Information on the critical success factors identified by the task
forces at each of the six colleges is provided, along with budgetary data, and the project
director's survey.

Outlines the benefits and limitations of automated assessment and offers practical advice for
individuals and departments considering a move in that direction. Maintains that using
optical mark readers (OMRs) in conjunction with objective tests can result in significant
time savings. Briefly discusses using OMRs for student evaluations.

The Nominal Group Technique, in which groups of students jointly evaluate a course, is
proposed as an alternative to individual course evaluation questionnaires for student
assessment of college teacher performance. Evaluation of a new course by three cohorts of
students using the technique is reported. Strengths and weaknesses emerging in the study,
and uses in other contexts, are considered.

Within the last few years, American schools have moved toward routi nely measuring the
outcomes of their educational programs. Two national associations deal ing with community
colleges have also developed quantitative indicators to assess outcomes for two-year colleges.
There are still colleges that make only minimal efforts at assessment, citing the `fairly
primitive level of assessment technologies and the difficulty in selecting qualitative indicators
of effectiveness, but gains have been made nevertheless. For example, the League for Innovation
in the Community College has described 5 major missions of the community college (i.e., transfer,
career preparation, basic skills, continuing education and community service, and access) and
suggested operational definitions, questions to be answered, and data
sources. The League suggests assessing the transfer mission, for exampl e, by variously
measuring student knowledge, the college's transfer rate, grades that students earn after
transfer, and the number of college credits the univer sities accepted. Other assessment
methods currently in use include surveys of: (1) students who have recently graduated, dropped
out, or transferred; (2) student performance after transfer; (3) occupational education
outcomes; (4) pre- and post-measures of student learning; and (5) public-image studies to
determine community members' impressions of a college and students' level of satisfaction.

In December 1992, the Community College Roundtable, a group of 10 two-year college
practitioners, convened to identify the core indicators of community college effectiveness.
This report identifies and defines a few such measures th at can be put to use on community
college campuses nationwide. After part I of the report explains the composition and purpose
of the Roundtable, part II presents an overview of the emergence of institutional effectiveness
as a compe lling i ssue on community college campuses and discusses how the set of core
indicators w as developed. Part III reviews the aims, purpose, focus, and organizati o n of the
report. Part IV provides a brief discussion of institutional effectiveness and how it can be
defined and considered in community colleges. Part V includes definitions and guidelines for
measuring core indicators. Part VI lists 13 core indicators according to mission category.
The indicators are: (1) student goal attainment; (2) persistence (fall to fall); (3) degree
completion rates; (4) placement rate in the work force; (5) employer assessment of students;
(6) number and rate of transfers; (7) performance after transfer; (8) success in subsequent,
related coursework; (9) demonstration of critical literacy skills; (10) demonstration of citizenship
skills; (11) client assessment of programs and services; (12) responsiveness to community needs;
and (13) participation rate in service area. Sources of data for each indicator are listed along
with additional, related measures of effectiveness. Part VII offers suggestions for utilizing and
measuring the indicators. Finally, part VIII lists five references.

The student development transcript, conceived in the 1970s for recording and validating
student learning experiences outside the classroom, may come closer to reaching its potential
through interactive computer technology. Programs combining student assessment of the
college experience, mentoring, and use of the transcript grew in the 1980s but have declined
since. A new incarnation using computers has seen success.

As administrators, students, and the political machinery make higher education more
accountable, assessment has become a relevant and timely topic. Recent interest in
assessment and evaluation have brought significant changes in the way that educators in the
field of organizational communication judge their students' work. The lecture method is the
most preferred approach to teaching the course, but several secondary methods include:
alternative media, case studies, simulation games, role playing, videotapes, films, and
transparencies. Self-directed teams and internships are also used. Various innovative
methods of assessment have emerged--among these a combination of objective and
subjective evaluations like formal and/or informal evaluation by the supervisor;
self-evaluation; informal evaluation by the faculty; evaluation of a daily log kept by
students; and evaluation of students' work or portfolio. While there is a distinction between
student assessment and evaluation and curriculum assessment and evaluation, each has an
impact on the other. To best evaluate the role the learning environment plays in the
development of the organizational communication student, faculty should use four
traditional methods: reaction, knowledge, behavior, and results.

As a result of increasing pressure from external constituencies, community colleges have
been called upon to demonstrate accountability through assessment activities and research
on institutional effectiveness based on student outcomes. Since community colleges include
transient student populations, students with a wide range of ability and academic goals, and
large numbers of adjunct faculty, assessment should focus on the improvement of campus
instructional and support programs to increase student success, rather than on national
comparisons. In addition, it is critical that colleges determine who will assess the information
collected and how it relates to student learning and instruction. Available assessment
techniques and methods include competency-based models, self-reports, third-party reports,
focus groups, in-depth interviews, participant observ ations , case studies, exit surveys,
and alumni surveys. Assessment activities should take into consideration the needs of culturally,
ethnically, religiously, and linguistically diverse students. Although offering extrinsic
rewards encourages participation in assessment activities, assessment only becomes an
integral partof the institution when this focus is clearly stated in the mission of the
college and emphasized as a part of ensuring student success. Faculty resistance and lack
of resources are often barriers to assessment processes. Finally, rather than searching
for a single indicator to demonstrate success, institutions should value the use of
different benchmarks as evidence of institutional effectiveness.

The Accountability Atlas presents information about the students, progr ams, staff,
and services of the City College of San Francisco (CCSF), California. Most of the
information is for the 1993-94 academic year, with some longitudinal data provided. The atlas
is divided into the following six chapters: student access; student success; student satisfaction;
staff composition; fiscal condition; and local indicators. Each chapter begins with a definition
of the accountability area, a list of performance indicators, master plan goals, and student equity
indicators. Data tables provide information on the following indicators: (1) general participation;
(2) transition from high school and sources of new students; (3) financial aid; (4) categorical
programs; (5) matriculation; (6) basic skills and English-as-a-Second-Language enrollment;
(7) student persistence; (8) course completion; (9) degree completion by field of study;
(10) transfer; (11) job placement; (12) access; (13) instruction; (14) instructional support
services; (15) student services; (16) facilities; (17) staff diversity; (18) number of
full- and part-time faculty; (19) community college funding; (20) fiscal stability;
(21) staff development; (22) campus cl imate; (23) customer satisfaction; (24)shared
governance; (25) deferred maintenance; and (26) educational technology plan. Appendixes
include information on enrollment by zip code, and service area population by gender and
ethnicity.

The experience of Napier University (Scotland) with new mandatory quality assessments is
examined, focusing on issues arising in the first two rounds of evaluation site visits,
including defining quality; role of the lead evaluator; fra mework for the visit; role of
the student; quality of the reports; and cost-benefit analysis.

This paper describes three non-traditional higher education outcomes assessment models and
identifies common characteristics of successful models of this type. Institutions considering
how to meet state, national, and accrediting agency mandates have two kinds of non-traditional
approaches available: formative and summative assessment. Formative assessment helps institutions
make internal adjustments to student programs before the student completes the program.
Summative assessment is that which evaluates the overalleffectiveness of programs and services.
A third emerging model is the Assessment Center model in which the testing and evaluating procedures
for an institution are coordinated. Common features of assessment models all designed to meet
the unique needs of individualinstitutions include evaluation of: clearly stated institutional
mission and goals developed by the institutional community; in-place formal systems
procedures; faculty commitment;administrative support; feedback from students and graduates;
student-faculty contact beyond class; assessment focus on student completion; feedback to
students; and commitment fromchief leadership personnel. The paper closes with a discussion of
the historical context of assessment pressures in higher education and a look at why assessment
is now being mandated. Contains 18 references.

Prepared by the Outcomes Assessment Task Force (OATF) at Owens Community College(OCC),
in Ohio, this document describe s the philosophy guiding assessment at OCC and provides
a non-pre scriptive guide for implementing an assessment plan. Part I provides an introduction
to outcomes assessment at OCC, including OCC's assessment philosophy, a list of OATF members,
and a calendar of assessment events through summer 1996. This section also outlines the following
steps in a procedural design for implementing the OATF's proposed assessment plan: (1) examine
college mission; (2) examine division mission statements; (3) examine department/program mission
and outcomes; (4) develop departmental assessment plans; (5) implement and test assessment measures;
(6) use assessments to make improvements; (7) evaluate the effectiveness of the assessment measures;
(8) evaluate the assessment plan itself; and (9) communicate results to constituents. Part II
describes the theoretical orientation of the Task Force and provides examples of the nine
steps of the OATF plan. Part III describes assessment methodologies at OCC, indicating that
assessment is divided into institutional, general education (GE), and department assessments,
and provides tables of institutional assessment functions and activities. This section also
provides the nine expectations and indicators of effectiveness of the Ohio Board of Regents,
a table of GE competencies, and a workbook for program specific assessments providing information
on the functions of community colleges, writing department mission statements, and measuring
results. Finally, part IV presents a model of institutional effectiveness. Lists of general
education comp etencies and desired competencies for students are appended.

Theme issue: "Using Performance Indicators to Guide Strategic Decision Making."
Total Quality Management methods can build on conventional performa nce indicators to
enhance their usefulness in monitoring and improving quality and effectiveness in higher
education institutions. Experience with these methods at colleg es and universities, particularly
in several academic and administrative areas at Pennsylvania State University, is examined.

Discusses ways to motivate students to participate in and take assessment effor ts seriously.
Indicates that a strong institutional commitment to testing, administrative support of
assessment, integration of testing into the curriculum, stu dent and faculty participation
in testing operations, and reporting test results are major factors in successful assessment
programs.

This study examined the relationships among college students' perceptions of their personal
(constructivist-based) learning environments, the extent to which they viewed selected
teaching and learning activities as enhancing their personal learning, and their personal
learning efficacy. A total of 2,190 students in 145 evening classes offered by Louisiana State
University in the 1996 fall semester participated in the study. The students completed three
separate measures of assessments of the quality of teaching and learning, personal
perceptions of the learning environment, and motivation and outcomes expectancy
assessments of personal learning efficacy. The results support the validity of adapting the
Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI), an instrument originally developed for
use in secondary classrooms, to the college classroom setting. They also support the use of
the Student Assessment of Teaching and Learning (SATL) measure. Correlations between
the SATL and SLEI subscales generated in this study suggest that students' personal
perceptions of characteristics of the learning environment and their self-reported experiences
and behaviors are significantly related to their self-reports of learning enhancement. Copies
of the measures used in the study are appended.

In June 1993, the Quebec Commission d'evaluation de l'enseigne ment collegial (CEEC)
was created to conduct evaluations of the assessment of student achievement and quality
of college programs of studies in the province. This repo rt presents CEEC guidelines for
evaluating institutional policies for the evaluation of student achievement (IPESA's).
Following an introduction to the CEEC and its focus on IPESA's, the regulatory framework
regarding IPESA's in Quebec is described, indicating that colleges are required to adopt
and implement an IPESA and submit it to the CEEC for evaluation. Next, the CEEC's approach
is described, highlighting its guiding principles that students have a right to fair evaluation,
that the quality of the evaluation depends on the quality of the instruments used, that
institutional diversity must be respected, and that the evaluation of student achievement
is an essential component of the teaching process. Then, the essential components of an
IPESA are presented, indicating that an IPESA must include descriptions of: (1) the
institution's goals and objectives; (2) the rules, methods, procedures, and measures
used to achieve the objectives; (3) the roles and responsibilities entrusted to various
individuals and bodies; and (4) the methods and criteria used to evaluate the implementation
of the IPESA. The final section provides the CEEC's criteria for evaluating IPESA's, including
comprehensiveness, coherence, and relevance; the rulings the CEEC may render, from entirely
satisfactory to unsatisfactory; criteria for evaluating the implementation of IPESA's, including
compliance, effectiveness, and equivalence; and information on the CEEC's evaluation report.

Theme issue: "Using Performance Indicators to Guide Strategic Decision Making."
The development of institutional performance indicators in higher education is viewed
as part of a broader approach to management information and decision making. The experience
of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems in developing useful information
from raw data, selecting appropriate performance indicators, and applying indicators to
decision making is discussed.

Describes a student survey to assess the effectiveness of Niagara County Community
College's general education program. Students were asked to assess their own levels of
competence in various knowledge and skill areas, and to evaluate the college's contributions
to their skill development. Most students felt the college had helped them develop stronger
general education competencies.

Describes the ways which college presidents can promote assessment by mobilizing
institutional resources for assessment; balancing conflicts between assessing for
effectiveness, efficiency, and improvement; and communicating assessment results to college
constituencies. Indicates that presidents must be actively involved in planning and
implementing assessment on their campuses.

Provides an annotated bibliography reflecting the major issues involved in accountability
and assessment programs at community colleges. Includes abstracts of documents contained
in the ERIC database on assessment methods, student outcomes studies, and the use of
assessment as a planning tool.

Theme issue: Assessing Performance in an Age of Accountability: Case Studies.
The development of a complex, highly computerized system of performanc e indicators by
the State University of New York provides the means to monitor internal progress, report to
a skeptical public, and compare the system's performance with a national sample of institutions.
The system is described here, and the performance indicators and data sources are charted.

Theme issue: Assessing Performance in an Age of Accountability: Case Studies.
The more successful college and university responses to the demand for accountability and
assessment have been campus-based, with administrative and faculty leadership and support.
Efforts initiated in state governments have been less substantive. An emerging trend in
Europe is toward quality audits by peer assessment teams, reflecting greater decentralization
of authority and oversight.

This monograph reviews empirical studies on various aspects of higher education relating
to the effectiveness of instruction in regard to four areas: curriculum, instruction, campus
psyc hological climate, and academic advising. After a n introduction, the first section
describes the development of critical skills, how these skills develop, and the conditions
believed necessary to produce them. The following four sections examine the four core areas
central to student development and the contribution research suggests they now make to the
development: (1) curriculum (methods, the intellectual climate of the classroom, students'
involvement, effects of the curriculum); (2) instruction (classroom tests and grades);
(3) the campus climate (integration into the campus community, commuter and part-time
students, students involvement with faculty, and minority group members); and (4) academic
advising (developmental advising, the necessity for training in advising, and evaluation,
recognition, and reward of advising). The next three sections describe opportunities for
dramatic gains in students' learning, examining evidence about the relative capacity of
students to learn at a very high level; describing seven specific changes which can
improve students' learning, and addressing issues of leadership, management, and professional
development. The final section presents a vision and a challenge to develop a new kind of
community on campus.

Describes new methods of higher education assessment: outcomes based (at end of course)
and value added (multiple measures over time). Reviews other assessment
forms--standardized tests, program-based achievement instruments, perception
measures--and gives suggestions for home economics student assessment.

In summer 1994, the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) conducted
a focused evaluation visit of Cincin nati Technical College (CTC)in Ohio to evaluate the
degree of success of CTC's adm inistrati ve st ructure and governance model, review the
college's assessment plan, and review CTC's request for institutional change in status
from a technical college to a comprehensive community college. The focused evaluation
report required by the NCA was prepared with the participation of the college's
Long-Range Planning Committee and broad involvement of the college community. The report
described progress related to three concerns raised by a previous accreditation team:
(1) the effectiveness of the administrative structure and governance model, citing
evidence of improved methods for reviewing program curricula, setting annual budgets,
and facilities planning; (2) the lack of coordination of general institutional planning,
describing the establishment of the Long Range Planning Committee to coordinate planning;
and (3) the inadequacy of facility allocations for student services, pointing to new
equipment, an integrated computer system, and a 60% increase in space. With respect
to the change from a technical to a community college and corresponding addition of
two associate degree programs, the state Board of Trustees had conducted a 2-year review
which resulted in favor of the conversion. The focus visit lasted 2 days, at the end of
which it was concluded that progress had been made in the areas of governance and
administration and the request for institutional change was approved.

Argues that student assessment plays a crucial role in the academic life of college
students, and assessment arrangements embody the purposes of higher education. Reviews research
suggesting learners' perceptions of course testing procedures is the single most important
influence on learning. Outlines six guiding principles of test development to promote
teaching aims in higher education.

The population of immigrants to the United States is both growing and changing, and
entering an economy in transition. A recent study focused on their impact on access to
higher education and on the institutions themselves, including efficiency of operation and
campus diversity. Unresolved issues include need for English language skills, student
assessment, and legal status of immigrant students.

This digest recommends assessing all of a person's abilities, not just some. It also discusses
self-report in the context of ability assessment. Current use of self assessment methodology
taps more ability areas than existing ability or aptitude tests cover. Alternative testing
approaches have been called for which enhance self-discovery and awareness. Some recent
self-report studies show at least comparable validity with more traditional approaches. Some
researchers are advocating the self-assessment methodology which can substantially cut loss
of instructional time and cost, evaluate hard-to-assess constructs, and deliver information
most people feel is useful for self-knowledge and career planning. Philosophically, the
process of self-evaluation fits the belief that individuals are in the best position to assess
since they have access to a large data base on their own successes and failures in their
abilities. Most misgivings about the methodology seem to center around beliefs that
individuals have a tendency to be lenient and are not objective enough in their self-analysis
to provide accurate self-reports.

In 1969, the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) established a centralized
student-specific data system from which state and federal reports and management
information could be developed. However, this system provide s no information about students
and graduates after they leave the system. In order to augment the inconsistent data gathered
through follow-up surveys and feedback from senior colleges, the VCCS needs access to in-state
and out-of-state databases that compile student-specific rather than aggregate data. Student-specific
data permits the matching and merging of data records from other sources with the VCCS data system to
produce a database for management information, assessment, academic and institutional research,
and for compliance with federal higher education regulations and anticipated accrediting requirements.
Specifically, the VCCS perceives a need for: (1) access to the Virginia Council of Higher Education's
student-specific data system to receive transfer information by name, social security
number, and other data elements; (2) the development of partnerships with other states that would
allow the transfer of information from the higher education state data files and the unemployment
insurance files of the employment commission across state boundaries; (3) modification of the federal
unemployment insurance file to indicate the employee's full- or part-time employment status and specific
occupation; (4) the development of federal regulations that are easy to implement at the college level
with simple definitions and comparable data; and (5) the reassessment of student classifications to better
reflect student intent and goals, creating some categories that may not fit easily into federal or state
classification structures. Technology is available that will allow the collection and sharing of data and
is a change in thinking.

In September 1994, the New Mexico Commission on Higher Education issued standards for
the State Postsecondary Reporting Entity (SPRE). To comply with these s tandards, New
Mexico State University-Alamogordo (NM SU-A) decided to use its Integrated Assessment
and Strategic Planning (IASP) process, developed during a pre-accreditation self-study
in 1993. To manage the increasing number of accountability requirements, the IASP
committee established an Outcomes Committee to develop a SPRE compliance matrix. In
developing the matrix, the Committee worked from five main goals: (1) develop an understandable
matrix that would include all the standards and criteria the college faced; (2) research
and develop ways to measure the effectiveness of student learning and success after the
completion of a program; (3) develop a catalog of every external reporting requirement
needing assessment; (4) analyze the cost of survey instruments; and (5) research and
develop an effective method of measuring students' ability to complete programs. Problems
encountered in developing the matrix included determining which standards may become
serious issues, the cost/benefit ratio of periodically reviewing accountability standards, which
standards are the most relevant for the college, and which institutional unit will be
responsible for SPRE compliance. Now that the matrix has been developed, NMSU-A will
need to compile other matrices for each institutional mission and purpose, implement a
time-line for assessment, and design an internal audit system to ensure compliance with
onsite reviews.

Theme issue: Assessing Performance in an Age of Accountability: Case Studies.
To develop a set of effective performance indicators, three campuses of Texas A&M
University collaborated: a large research university, a historically black institution,
and an urban campus undergoing major changes. Evolution of the project and the strategies
used to develop core indicators while addressing the different institutional missions are
discussed.

A discussion of effective training for health professionals proposes that selection of
strategy be guided by knowledge needed by the graduating student; skills to be mastered;
teaching methods effective for achieving these two objectives; and whether the desired
knowledge,skills, and attitudes are reflected in assessment methods and outcomes measures.

Describes how six colleges and universities, known for their assessment programs, use
student outcomes assessment to improve programs. Each school preferred to use nationally
normed tests and inventories supplemented with locally developed instruments. Outcomes assessment
help schools to meaningfully reconsider their educational values and practices

The use of taxonomies of types and levels of learning for student assessment in higher
education is discussed. Five taxonomies designed for a variety of instructional areas are
described. The reasons for their use are examined from four points of view: pedagogical,
professional, quality assurance, and management.

Describing Pima Community College's (Arizona) institutional effectiveness program, this
report provides related board policy, an overview of the p rog ram , and ananalys is of
each of the five program components. Following introductory materials and a board statement
indicating the college's commitment to ensuring institutional effectiveness through continuous
assessment and quality improvement, an overview of the program is provided, including a
schematic diagram of program components and a list of documents in which review results
are made available. Individual descriptions are then provided for the following five
components of the institutional effectiveness program: (1) an evaluation, every 5 years,
of the mission statement involving broad-based community involvement; (2) annual reviews
of programs and services with respect to students, faculty, curriculum, and financial
operation, as well 5-year reviews of goal achievement, faculty development, and curriculum
modifications; (3) periodic evaluations of faculty, the chancellor, administrators, staff,
and the board of governors; (4) student outcomes assessment, including classroom mini-grants,
general education, occupational education, and student information system reports; and
(5) continuous evaluation of the planning process. For each section, information is provided
on participants in each component, the form of documentation, and the utilization of
results. Timelines, the executive summaries of four research reports, and other supporting
materials are appended.

This paper reviews the development of a curriculum ass essment plan by the Business and
Management Division of Cardinal Stritch College in M ilwaukee, Wisconsin, and reports the
results of a study to determine the effectiveness of t he p lan. The division, which
delivers accelerated instruction in evening courses, used the comprehensive outcomes
assessment program (COAP) and the core curriculum assessment program (CCAP) to evaluate
the division's programs and student achievement. The division used the COAP and CCAP
measures to compare the pre- and post-test scores of 78 students who have completed the
Bachelor of Science in Business Management program and 41 students who have completed the
Master of Science in Management program. It also used the measures to assess the pre-test
scores of 67 students who did not complete these programs. The study found that students
who completed the Bachelor's or Master's programs exhibited a significant increase in business
management skills. It also found that students who did not complete the Bachelor's program
had significantly higher pre-test scores than students who received their degree, while students
who did not complete the Master's program had lower pre-test scores than those who did.

This paper addresses issues in assessment of college students, outcome studies, and attrition
research in the context of trends toward requiring greater accountability from institutions
of higher education. First the paper considers how assessment, student outcomes studies,
and attrition research terminology might be more clearly defined. It suggests that these three
areas of inquiry, although distinctive, are highly interrelated phenomena. The paper then
attempts to operationalize definitions and outline a recursive research model appropriate for
research in these areas. Finally, it briefly describes how one small liberal arts university is
currently thinking through the process of implementing a longitudinal assessment program
including student outcomes studies and student attrition research through a recursive
research model and operationalized definitions. Stressed is the need for institutions to plan
their research to be consistent with the educational goals of the institution.

This paper reports on a 1992 fol low-up survey of graduates of Virginia Wesleyan College
(VWC). The targ et p opulation o f 1,110 graduates from the classes of 1987 through 1992
were surveyed, and 576 responded(51.9 percent). Responding graduates indicated that they
were generally satisfied with their educational experiences and with the programs and
services provided by the college. Graduates reported that the school fostered personal
growth in cognitive and affective areas and that their VWC experiences had adequately
prepared them for continued educational pursuits and/or employment. Areas of concern that
emerged from the survey included students' experiences in student activities and their
preparation in computers, responsibilities of citizenship, application of scientific
principles and methods, and applied mathematics. Various college services such as registration
process, library services, and cost of attending, also received less favorable evaluations
from the graduates. Includes nine tables.

In the service of accountability, educators h ave been emphasizing the student as consumer,
client, customer. Consequently , assessment is asking the wr on g ques tions of the wrong
people. Outcome measu res are often intended to evaluate student and teacher performance
rather than to assess teaching and learning. Anthony Petrosky's study of literacy in the
Mississippi Delta is a frightening example of how assessment can masquerade as learning.
According to the Petrosky study, mandates based on assessment measures typic