• +353-1-415-1241(GMT OFFICE HOURS)
  • 1-800-526-8630(US/CAN TOLL FREE)
  • 1-917-300-0470(EST OFFICE HOURS)
Survey of Assessment Practices in Higher Education Product Image

Survey of Assessment Practices in Higher Education

  • Published: April 2006
  • Region: United States
  • 118 Pages
  • Primary Research Group

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

Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown

RELATED PRODUCTS

Our Clients

Our clients' logos