You are here:

One Department’s Approach to Program Assessment PROCEEDINGS

, , , Western Illinois University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in San Diego, CA, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-78-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Abstract

This paper is a report on the findings of one instructional design and technology’s department’s self-evaluation. Deming’s Plan-Do-Study-Act model was used to move the department from an informal use of assessment data to a more formalized process. The study reports a description of the departmental assessments used, how they were coded, analyzed, and used for continuous improvement. Recommendations for other institutions to use when developing a framework for improvement are also stated.

Citation

Hemphill, L., Hemphill, H. & McCaw, D. (2010). One Department’s Approach to Program Assessment. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 76-82). San Diego, CA, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved November 16, 2018 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Burke, J.C., & Minassians, H.P. (2003). Reporting higher education results: Missing links in the performance chain. New Directions for Institutions’ Research, Number 116. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conway, M. (N.D.). Measurements can make or break TWI program: Identify results-oriented metrics early on. Part 2 of 3-Part Series. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.twinews.com/issues/2009_03/That_Which_Gets_Measured.asp#.
  2. Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  3. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
  4. Glassman, N.S., & Glasman, L.D. (1990). Educational reform and evaluation. In S. Bachharach (Ed.), Educational reform (Chapter 30). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  5. National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education. (2005, March). Accountability for better results: A national imperative for higher education. A project of the State Higher Education Executive Officers.
  6. National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices. (2002). Higher expectations: Second in a series of essays on the future of higher education: Influencing the future of higher education. National Governor’s Association. Retrieved on August 10, 2009, from http://www.nga.org.
  7. Shewhart, W. (1939). Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. Washington, DC: Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture. [Reprinted by Dover, Toronto, 1986]
  8. Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J.F. (2007). A conceptual overview of a holistic model for quality in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(3), 173-193. Retrieved on August 3, 2009, from Emerald Group Publishing Limited at http://www.emeral Dinsight,com/0951-354X.htm.
  9. Zemsky, R. (2009). Making reform work: The case for transforming American higher education. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.