Predictors of Institutional Approach

Among the various analyses completed using the data from the nation survey in Phase II of the national study, we performed regression analysis to identify how institutional type, state characteristics and student assessment policies, accreditation emphasis on student assessment, and institution-wide dynamics supporting student assessment influenced the institutions’ approach to student assessment. We examined the extensiveness (number of measures of student assessment) and adoption of three specific approaches to student assessment: cognitive, affective, and post-college (see Peterson & Augustine, 2000a). For the purpose of this analysis, we focused on the responses from 885 public institutions that participated in our survey. Private institutions were excluded, as they are not under the influence of state requirements for student assessment. In this analysis, institutional approaches to student assessment was treated as the dependent variable and dimensions from the domains of institutional context, external influences, and institution-wide strategy, support, and leadership for student assessment were treated as predictors (see conceptual framework below).

Conceptual Framework for Predicting Institutional Approach and Institution-wide Support

A regression was run using state, accrediting, and institutional dynamics as predictors and the institutional approach to collecting data for each competency (cognitive, affective, and post-college) as the dependent variable. A brief overview of the findings:

Cognitive Competencies

• For Associate of Arts institutions, the model explained 23% of the variance with three institutional dynamics variables (mission emphasis, administrative and governance activities, and internal purposes) accounting for 15% of the variance and accrediting region accounting for 8% of the variance. The institutional dynamics variables had a positive influence while the accrediting region had a negative influence with Western region accounting for 7% of the variance.
  
  
• For Baccalaureate and Comprehensive institutions, the model explained 27% of the variance with two institutional dynamics variables (faculty and administrative support and internal purposes) having a positive influence while accrediting region, which had a negative influence, accounted for 11% of the variance. Middle States region accounted for 6% of this variance.
  
  
• For Doctoral and Research institutions, the model explained 22% of the variance with the institutional dynamics variable internal purposes (6%) and North Central accrediting region (10%) having a positive influence, while the state variable, state mandates for common indicators (6%), has a negative influence.
  

Affective Competencies

• For Associate of Arts institutions, the model explained 13% of the variance with two institutional dynamics variables (mission emphasis and internal purposes) accounting for 10% of the variance and accrediting region accounting for 3% of the variance. The institutional dynamics variables and Southern accrediting region had a positive influence while Western accrediting region had a negative influence.
  
  
• For Baccalaureate and Comprehensive institutions, the model explained only 7% of the variance with only one institutional dynamics variable (internal purposes) accounting for 5% while Southern accrediting region accounted for 2% of the variance. Both had a positive influence on the collection of affective competency information.
  
  
• For Doctoral and Research institutions, the model explained 21% of the variance with two institutional dynamics variables (administrative and governance activities (6%) and internal purposes (11%)) accounting for 17% of the variance. The state characteristic, assessment initiative, accounts for the remaining 4% of the variance. All influences are positive and there is no influence from accrediting region for Doctoral and Research institutions.

Post-college Competencies

• For Associate of Arts institutions, the model explained 19% of the variance with three institutional dynamics variables (mission emphasis (2%), administrative and governance activities (1%), and internal purposes (4%)) accounting for 7% of the variance and accrediting region (Middle State (1%), Southern (1%), and Western (9%)) accounting for the remaining 12% of the variance. Interestingly, all the variables except Western accrediting region had a positive influence, and Western accrediting region, which accounted for 9%of the variance in the model had a negative influence.
  
  
• For Baccalaureate and Comprehensive institutions, the model explained only 9% of the variance with two institutional dynamics variable (mission emphasis (2%) and internal purposes (5%)) accounting for 7%, while Western accrediting region accounted for the remaining 2% of the variance. Again, Western accrediting region had a negative influence on the collection of affective competency information.
  
  
• For Doctoral and Research institutions, the model explained only 6% of the variance with all 6 percent being accounted for by the institutional dynamics variables internal purposes. This was the weakest model for any competency and institutional type.
  

Role of State

• State characteristics showed little influence on the approaches that institutions used in their student assessment efforts. Only two characteristics emerged as influential, assessment initiatives and common indicators or outcomes and these only emerged as influential for Doctoral and Research institutions. Interestingly, states that had mandates for common indicators or outcomes had a negative influence on the collection of information on cognitive competencies.

Role of Accreditation

• The influence of accrediting region is mixed. Accrediting region is significantly associated with all three types of approaches (cognitive, affective, and post-college) for Associate of Arts and Baccalaureate and Comprehensive institutions, but accrediting region is only associated with cognitive competencies for Doctoral and Research institutions. There is also a mix of positive and negative influence among the different regions for the different types of approaches.

Institutional Dynamics

• Institutions citing internal purposes (e.g. improving teaching and learning processes) are more likely to collect all three types of student assessment data (cognitive, affective, and post-college). This is the strongest indicator of approach for any institutional dynamics variable.
  
  
• Emphasis on student assessment in the mission statement is positively related to all three types of student assessment approaches, though most strongly related to associate of arts institutions where it has a positive influence on the collection of all three types of information.
  
  
• Administrative and governance activities was significantly related to the collection of all three types of student assessment approaches, though it was only significant for certain approaches at specific types of institutions (i.e. cognitive at baccalaureate and comprehensive institutions, affective at doctoral and research institutions, and post college at associate of arts institutions).
  
  
• Evidence of faculty and administrative support was significantly related to the collection of cognitive competencies at Baccalaureate and Comprehensive institutions.