Survey of Assessment Practices in Higher Education
Primary Research Group, April 2006, Pages: 118
The Survey of Assessment Practices in Higher Education presents results from an assessment benchmarking study with more than 80 participants. The study presents data on college assessment efforts, including but not limited to: the size, budget and scope college assessment offices, salaries for assessment officers, number of employees working on assessment issues in and out of assessment offices, the use of standardized testing, types of tests used, use and type of remedial courses, use of incentives to take standardized assessment tests, use of instructor evaluation questionnaires and other methods of instructor evaluation, impact of assessment on merit-based pay, tenure and other personnel decisions; methods for evaluating adjunct and regular faculty; level of faculty involvement in assessment; impact of curriculum changes, use of survey software in assessment, use of assessment consultants, seminars and other services – and many other aspects of college assessment programs and policies.
Survey Participants
College Demographic Information
College Demographic Information
Summary of Main Findings
Chapter 1: Departmental Assessment
Developing an Assessment Plan
Assessment Plan
Assessment Office
Use of Software to Aid in Assessment
Chapter 2: Standardized Testing
Remedial Courses
Payout for Standardized Testing
Chapter 3: Assessment Office
Office
Full Time Assessment Employees
Assessment Office Salary Range
Assessment Office Size
Annual Assessment Office Budget
Assessment Professionals Working Outside of the Main Assessment Office
Size of the Basic Instructor Evaluation Form
Chapter 4: Student Assessment of Instructors
Questionnaires
Impact of Student Assessment Questionnaires on Tenure Decisions.
Impact of Student Faculty Assessment Questionnaires on the Hiring and Retention Regarding Adjunct Instructors.
Formats Used for the Completion of Student Assessment Questionnaires
Impact of Student Course Evaluations on Merit Pay Increases for Instructors
Chapter 5: Evaluation of adjunct faculty
Courses Taught by adjunct faculty
Methods of Evaluating adjunct faculty
Policy Towards Determining The Evaluation of adjunct faculty
The Evaluation of Adjunct Instructors
The Use of Student Evaluation Forms in Evaluating Adjunct Instructors
The Use of Standardized Tests in Evaluating Adjunct Instructors
The Use of In Class Visits by Full-Time Professors in Evaluating Adjunct Instructors
Evaluating Instructors
The Use of Student Evaluation Forms in Evaluating Instructors
The Use of Standardized Tests to Evaluate Learning in Chosen Majors in Evaluating Instructors
The Use of Standardized Tests Provided by Testing Companies to Obtain Results to Compare to National Data in Evaluating Instructors
The Use of In Class Visits by Full-Time Professors or Other Evaluators in Evaluating Instructors
Chapter 6: Faculty Involvement in Assessment
Role of College Faculty in Developing the College's Assessment Vehicles
Faculty Views on Assessment Efforts
Centers to Develop Faculty Teaching Skills
Approximate Annual Assessment Office Spending
Policy to Link Instructor Compensation to Documented Increases in Teaching Effectiveness
Chapter 7: Tutoring
Tutoring or Student Learning Center
Location of the Tutoring or Learning Center
Chapter 8: Assessing Student Services
Chapter 9: Assessment Environment
Chapter 10: Curriculum Changes
Chapter 11: Benchmarking Data
The Purchase of Student Performance Benchmarking Data
Colleges that use ZOOMERANG
Colleges that use WEAVEONLINE
Colleges that use SURVEYMONKEY
Colleges that use WEBSURVEYOR
Colleges that use STUDENTVOICE
Colleges that use KEY SURVEY
Colleges that use SURVEY TRACKER
Colleges that use SNAP
Colleges that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE
Colleges that use ULTIMATE SURVEY
Chapter 12: Use of Consultants and Services
Spending on Outside Consultants and Services Related to Assessment
Conferences Devoted to Assessment that Administrators Attended in the Past Year
Chapter 13: Post Graduate Assessment
Colleges with a Post Graduate Assessment Program
Interviews of Students Who Graduate
Interviews of Students Who Transfer Out of College
Interviews of Students Who Drop Out of College
Number of Exit Interviews for Graduating Students
Exit Interviews Conducted With Students Who Left the College For Any Reason
Compensation for Students That Take Exit Interviews
Chapter 1: Departmental Assessment
Chapter 2: Standardized Testing
Chapter 3: Assessment Office
Chapter 4: Student Assessment of Instructors
Chapter 5: Evaluation of adjunct faculty
Chapter 6: Faculty Involvement in Assessment
Chapter 7: Tutoring
Chapter 8: Assessing Student Services
Chapter 9: Assessment Environment
Chapter 10: Curriculum Changes
Chapter 11: Benchmarking Data
Chapter 12: Use of Consultants and Services
Chapter 13: Post Graduation Assessment
Chapter 14: Assessing Assessment
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
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
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
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
Table 1.5: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum percentage of the major departments in the college that have developed a detailed assessment plan
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 1.13: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package ACT
Table 1.14: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package ACT, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 1.15: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package ACT, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 1.16: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package ACT, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 1.17: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package Accuplacer
Table 1.18: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package Accuplacer, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 1.19: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package Accuplacer, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 1.20: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package Accuplacer, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 1.21: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package COMPASS
Table 1.22: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package COMPASS, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 1.23: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package COMPASS, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 1.24: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that use the Assessment Package COMPASS, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 1.25: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Mathematics Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen
Table 1.26: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Mathematics Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 1.27: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Mathematics Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 1.28: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Mathematics Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 1.29: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Reading Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen
Table 1.30: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Reading Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 1.31: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Reading Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 1.32: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Reading Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 1.33: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Writing Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen
Table 1.34: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Writing Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 1.35: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Writing Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 1.36: Percentage of Colleges that Administer the Writing Section of COMPASS to incoming Freshmen, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 1.37: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the NSSE
Table 1.38: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the NSSE, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 1.39: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the NSSE, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 1.40: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the NSSE, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 1.41: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the HERI
Table 1.42: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the HERI, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 1.43: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the HERI, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 1.44: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the HERI, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 1.45: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used data from Educational Benchmarking, Inc.
Table 1.46: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used data from Educational Benchmarking, Inc., Broken Out by Type of College
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
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
Table 1.49: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the Center for Education Assessment
Table 1.50: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used the Center for Education Assessment, Broken Out by Type of College
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
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
Table 1.53: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used Chalk & Wire EPortfolio
Table 1.54: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used Chalk & Wire Eportfolio, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 1.55: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used Chalk & Wire Eportfolio, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 1.56: Percentage of Colleges in the Sample that have ever used Chalk & Wire Eportfolio, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 3.2: Percentage of colleges that have an office of assessment or similar office or department that primarily devotes itself to assessment
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 3.10: Sample college's annual salary range for the highest ranking assessment officer
Table 3.11: Sample college's annual salary range for the highest ranking assessment officer, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 3.12: Sample college's annual salary range for the highest ranking assessment officer, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 3.13: Sample college's annual salary range for the highest ranking assessment officer, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 3.14: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum of size of college assessment office for colleges in the sample, in square feet
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
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
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
Table 3.18: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum of annual budget, for colleges in the sample, of the assessment office, including salaries and overhead
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 4.1: Description of college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors
Table 4.2: Description of college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 4.3: Description of college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 4.4: Description of college's policies towards questionnaires for student assessment of instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 4.5: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions
Table 4.6: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 4.7: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 4.8: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on tenure decisions, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 4.9: Description of the impact of student faculty assessment questionnaires on the hiring and retention decisions regarding ADJUNCT instructors
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
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
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
Table 4.13: Description of formats used for the completion of student assessment questionnaires
Table 4.14: Description of formats used for the completion of student assessment questionnaires, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 4.15: Description of formats used for the completion of student assessment questionnaires, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 4.16: Description of formats used for the completion of student assessment questionnaires, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 4.17: Description of the impact of student course evaluations on merit pay increases for instructors
Table 4.18: Description of the impact of student course evaluations on merit pay increases for instructors, Broken Out by Type of College
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
Table 4.20: Description of the impact of student course evaluations on merit pay increases for instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 5.1: Mean, Median, Minimum and Maximum, for colleges in the sample, of the percentage of courses taught by adjunct faculty
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
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
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
Table 5.5: Description of the method for evaluating adjunct faculty
Table 5.6: Description of the method for evaluating adjunct faculty, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 5.7: Description of the method for evaluating adjunct faculty, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 5.8: Description of the method for evaluating adjunct faculty, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 5.9: Description of college's policy towards determining the evaluation of ADJUNCT instructors
Table 5.10: Description of college's policy towards determining the evaluation of ADJUNCT instructors, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 5.11: Description of college's policy towards determining the evaluation of ADJUNCT instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 5.12: Description of college's policy towards determining the evaluation of ADJUNCT instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 5.13: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate adjunct instructors
Table 5.14: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 5.15: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 5.16: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 5.17: Percentage of colleges that commonly use standardized tests to evaluate adjunct instructors
Table 5.18: Percentage of colleges that commonly use standardized tests to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 5.19: Percentage of colleges that commonly use standardized tests to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 5.20: Percentage of colleges that commonly use standardized tests to evaluate adjunct instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 5.21: Percentage of colleges that commonly use in class visits by full-time professors to evaluate adjunct instructors
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
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
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
Table 5.25: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate instructors
Table 5.26: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 5.27: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 5.28: Percentage of colleges that commonly use student evaluation forms to evaluate instructors, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 5.29: Percentage of colleges that commonly use Standardized Tests to Evaluate Learning in Chosen Majors, to evaluate instructors
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 5.37: Percentage of colleges that commonly use In Class Visits by Full time professors or instructors or other evaluators to evaluate instructors
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
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
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
Table 6.1: Description of college faculty's role in developing the college's assessment vehicles
Table 6.2: Description of college faculty's role in developing the college's assessment vehicles, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 6.3: Description of college faculty's role in developing the college's assessment vehicles, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 6.4: Description of college faculty's role in developing the college's assessment vehicles, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 6.5: Description of college's faculty views on the assessment efforts of the college administration
Table 6.6: Description of college's faculty views on the assessment efforts of the college administration, Broken Out by Type of College
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
Table 6.8: Description of college's faculty views on the assessment efforts of the college administration, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 6.9: Percentage of colleges in the sample that have one or more centers to develop faculty teaching skills
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 7.1: Percentage of colleges that have a tutoring or student learning center
Table 7.2: Percentage of colleges that have a tutoring or student learning center, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 7.3: Percentage of colleges that have a tutoring or student learning center, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 7.4: Percentage of colleges that have a tutoring or student learning center, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 7.5: Description of the location of the tutoring or learning center for colleges that have one
Table 7.6: Description of the location of the tutoring or learning center for colleges that have one, Broken Out by Type of College
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 10.1: Description of the success of assessment efforts for colleges sampled
Table 10.2: Description of the success of assessment efforts for colleges sampled, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 10.3: Description of the success of assessment efforts for colleges sampled, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 10.4: Description of the success of assessment efforts for colleges sampled, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
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
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
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
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
Table 11.5: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ZOOMERANG for assessment purposes
Table 11.6: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ZOOMERANG for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.7: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ZOOMERANG for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.8: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ZOOMERANG for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 11.9: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEAVEONLINE for assessment purposes
Table 11.10: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEAVEONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.11: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEAVEONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.12: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEAVEONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 11.13: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEYMONKEY for assessment purposes
Table 11.14: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEYMONKEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.15: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEYMONKEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.16: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEYMONKEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 11.17: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEBSURVEYOR for assessment purposes
Table 11.18: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEBSURVEYOR for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.19: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEBSURVEYOR for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.20: Percentage of colleges sampled that use WEBSURVEYOR for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 11.21: Percentage of colleges sampled that use STUDENTVOICE for assessment purposes
Table 11.22: Percentage of colleges sampled that use STUDENTVOICE for assessment purposeS, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.23: Percentage of colleges sampled that use STUDENTVOICE for assessment purposeS, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.24: Percentage of colleges sampled that use STUDENTVOICE for assessment purposeS, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 11.25: Percentage of colleges sampled that use KEY SURVEY for assessment purposes
Table 11.26: Percentage of colleges sampled that use KEY SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.27: Percentage of colleges sampled that use KEY SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.28: Percentage of colleges sampled that use KEY SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 11.29: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEY TRACKER PLUS for assessment purposes
Table 11.30: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEY TRACKER PLUS for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.31: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEY TRACKER PLUS for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.32: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SURVEY TRACKER PLUS for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 11.33: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SNAP for assessment purposes
Table 11.34: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SNAP for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.35: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SNAP for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.36: Percentage of colleges sampled that use SNAP for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 11.37: Percentage of colleges sampled that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE for assessment purposes
Table 11.38: Percentage of colleges sampled that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.39: Percentage of colleges sampled that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.40: Percentage of colleges sampled that use FLASHLIGHT ONLINE for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 11.41: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ULTIMATE SURVEY for assessment purposes
Table 11.42: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ULTIMATE SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 11.43: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ULTIMATE SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 11.44: Percentage of colleges sampled that use ULTIMATE SURVEY for assessment purposes, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 13.1: Percentage of colleges surveyed that have a post graduate assessment program
Table 13.2: Percentage of colleges surveyed that have a post graduate assessment program, Broken Out by Type of College
Table 13.3: Percentage of colleges surveyed that have a post graduate assessment program, Broken Out by Public or Private Institutional Status
Table 13.4: Percentage of colleges surveyed that have a post graduate assessment program, Broken Out by Full time equivalent enrollment
Table 13.5: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO GRADUATE at least once per year
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
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
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
Table 13.9: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO TRANSFER OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year
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
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
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
Table 13.13: Percentage of colleges surveyed that conducts INTERVIEWS OF STUDENTS WHO DROP OUT OF COLLEGE at least once per year
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 13.24: Percentage of colleges that offer compensation of any kind for students that take exit interviews
Table 13.25: Percentage of colleges that offer compensation of any kind for students that take exit interviews, Broken Out by Type of College
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
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
-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
Product Samples
A sample for this product is available. Please Login/Register to download this sample.
Customers who bought this item also bought
All rights reserved. © Copyright 2013 Research and Markets WWW4
Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Publishers Employment Opportunities Site Map Link to us Webmaster Affiliate Network