Crossing the Silos: Assessment Between and Within Academic and Student Affairs

Dr. Kerry Lynn Levett

CSPA-NYS

Outcomes of this session

• Delineate & identify practice model at participants’ institutions– Map assessment process for both models including

standardizing reporting

• Identify the pro’s/con’s of each assessment model

• Define learning outcomes to cross silos• Develop strategies for balancing the

assessment “playing field” for both silos• Create a roadmap for transitioning from the

parallel to collaborative practice model

Engagement Activity

Institutional Variations

• Public vs. Private– Process autonomy

• 2 yr vs. 4 year– Time to teach learn observe attainment of SLO

Many silos, one mission

• Academic Affairs– Structured (class,

department, gen eds, SLO

– Intentional– Student population– Often quantitative

questions– Historically focused

on cognitive gains*– “thinkers”*

• Student Affairs– Structured

(department, SLO, efficiencies, satisfaction

– Intentional & unintentional

– Sub-populations– Often qualitative and

quantitative questions– Historically focused

on affective gains* but shifting

– “doers”**Source: Bresciani, Zelna, & Anderson, 2004)

An Assessment Cycle Model

•Delivering curriculum, programs, and services

•Asking Questions •Collecting data•Analyzing data

•Defines who we are and what we do

•Uniqueness and sameness

•Improve student learning & the student experience

•Recommending or implementing policy and practice changes

Decision Making

Mission & Values

Implementing Goals & Attaining

Outcomes

Assessing

Collaborative Assessment Model• Structure

– One committee– One process– Reporting: same timeline, same format

• Mission & Values– Directly tackle institutional mission– Some values are tough to impart/measure in

classroom, can be focused out of classroom

• Implementing Goals & Outcomes– College goals & SLO can be jointly defined

• Assessing– May be collaborative, may be department based

(depends on the questions)

• Decision Making– Allows for campus wide approach to improvement

Collaborative Model

Pro’s1. Holistic

understanding of student learning

2. Minimize redundancy & “assessment burnout” of students

3. Share resources, sources, and results in challenging all to assess better

4. Chance to develop a common language

5. Accreditation

Con’s1. Hard (i.e.

scheduling)

2. Greater time commitment

3. Danger: spend more time on process, less time in practice

4. Requires greater understanding of each other before starting the process

5. Academic units can overshadow Student Affairs

Parallel Assessment Model

• Structure– Typically 2 separate committees and/or separate

processes– May have shared facilitator

• Mission & Values– May be distinct parts of institutional mission

“assigned” to different silos

• Implementing Goals & Outcomes– Often define differently

• Assessing– Departmental/divisional

• Decision Making– localized

Parallel Model

Pro’s1. Easier

2. Allows for customization and emphasizing nuances in each silo

3. More nimble in making changes

Con’s1. Potentially missing a

chasm of student learning & experience

2. Need more trained facilitators (need someone in both silos)

3. Danger: group think

4. Minimal shared information and resources

5. Perpetuates the silo mentality

Other Examples

Collaborative• Assessment Committee

– Representative from both silos

• Committee reported to Cabinet

• Jointly hired (search committee/process)

• Jointly defined SLO

Parallel• Academic Assessment

Committee– Faculty only

• Committee reports to Faculty Senate

• Position faculty • Different definitions of

SLO– No Student Affairs

input in determining SLO

Strategies for balancing the assessment “playing field”• Student affairs practitioners must learn the

language & education faculty in out of class learning – faculty must recognize SA practitioners as educators

• Identify and use allies• insert yourself in processes• Be an assessment scholar-practitioner

On the road: From parallel to collaborative models• Divide into pairs

– Identify the type of model you currently have and how well it is working

– Identify at least 3 changes that could be implemented on your campus to move toward or improve the collaborative model

Group Discussion