Leadership, Coordination and Information Management

Our national survey data highlighted the need for supporting different groups (administrative, faculty, and student affairs) and different types of student assessment. While the predominate pattern of administrative support for student assessment on most campuses are linked their use of student assessment, other studies have suggest the need for both faculty and administrative support. Our case studies suggest the need, not only, for administrative and faculty support, but also for support in student affairs. They also suggested the need for a broad base of support for student assessment of different types: a multi-faceted leadership. These sources of and four different facets or areas requiring different types of leadership in developing a strong institutional pattern for student assessment deserve comment.

Sources of Leadership
One source of student assessment leadership comes from the central or academic administration. In our case studies we found that most student assessment efforts started with the academic administration and those institutions with strong processes had considerable support from the top of the administration down to divisional and departmental administrators. Where we found sporadic support from key administrators such as the president and provost or chief academic officer, we also found sporadic student assessment efforts across the institution. Clearly, there is a need for strong commitment and support from the academic administration.
Another strong source of leadership emerges from the faculty of an institution. In case after case, we found that a failure by faculty to support and embrace the student assessment process would inevitably hinder the effort to collect, analyze, and most importantly, use student assessment information for the improvement of the educational quality of the institution. There were several cases where the faculty were divided in their support of the student assessment efforts. Often the division ran along departmental lines with certain traditionally objective fields such as math, science, or engineering resisting student assessment efforts. Others times, however, it was a matter of age or experience with more senior faculty expressing no desire to assess student learning any different than they had always before done it. There was no institution where faculty support was unanimous, however, it was clear that those institutions where the majority of faculty supported the student assessment effort was evident, the process was much stronger.

A final and often less considered source of leadership for student assessment can be found in student affairs staff. Often this division is left out of issues related directly to the academic pursuits of the institution. However, we found that those institutions that involved student affairs staff and students in the student assessment efforts had much stronger processes. The support of this division can be valuable in assuring a strong student assessment process across the institution.

Types of Leadership for Student Assessment
The need for Externally Oriented leadership was exemplified by some of the institutional presidents or executive officers. One convinced state leaders on his institution’s continuous quality approach and avoided a more restrictive set of state mandated measures. Another convinced state agency staff to de-emphasize institution-wide indicators and focus more on school and college measures. Others found ways to use state or accreditation requirements to help sell student assessment on their campuses. Still others developed strong relationships with national professional associations and experts to build campus assessment capacity.
Another type of leadership, Strategic leadership, focuses on building a comprehensive view of the institution’s overall approach to student assessment, designing the organizational patterns to promote and support it, and developing processes to use it. This was exemplified by two of the presidents in our case studies who were aware of the various organizational domains of student assessment and how to integrate it with an academic management philosophy. More often, this is a role played by the chief academic officer who was aware of both the institutions approach to academic management and its strategy for promoting educational improvement or change and was knowledgeable about student assessment. In one institution, it was a role played, largely behind the scenes, by a long-term institutional research officer with an extensive interest in student assessment.

Process leadership for student assessment is another facet. It is some one or group who is familiar with how to engage faculty and administrators in training and development in the many aspects of student assessment, how to help units organize student assessment activities, and how to link individuals involved in student assessment with those involved in the broader academic management or educational improvement efforts at the institution. A good example of this type of leadership from our case study can be found in the provosts’ office at Iowa State University. One staff member was able to engage representatives from diverse schools and colleges in learning about, organizing for and using student assessment for educational change and improvement initiatives.

Finally, Technical leadership is a type often assumed or overlooked. This includes knowledge about the design and use of various types of student assessment measures, developing and managing computer based student data systems, doing research and analysis that links institutional experiences to student performance, and effectively reporting or communicating the results. In most of our case studies, different individuals played one or more of these roles.
Clearly, these various facets of leadership for student assessment will seldom be found in one individual or even one group. However, in the three most highly developed institutions from our case studies, all four types of leadership are present.