Prelims
ISBN: 978-1-78973-900-8, eISBN: 978-1-78973-899-5
Publication date: 29 July 2019
Citation
Moye, J.N. (2019), "Prelims", A Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence Approach to Institutional Effectiveness in Higher Education, Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. i-xiii. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-899-520191009
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2019, John N. Moye.
Half Title Page
A Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence Approach to Institutional Effectiveness in Higher Education
Title Page
A Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence Approach to Institutional Effectiveness in Higher Education
By
John N. Moye
United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China
Copyright Page
Emerald Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK
First edition 2019
© John N. Moye. Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited.
Reprints and permissions service
Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-78973-900-8 (Print)
ISBN: 978-1-78973-899-5 (Online)
ISBN: 978-1-78973-901-5 (Epub)
Contents
List of Tables | vii |
Author Biography | xi |
Foreword | xiii |
Chapter 1 Defining, Measuring, and Assessing Effectiveness | 1 |
Chapter 2 Creating Shared Mission, Vision, and Values | 15 |
Chapter 3 Measuring and Assessing Program Structure: Intended Performance | 31 |
Chapter 4 Measuring and Assessing Instruction: Intended Performance | 77 |
Chapter 5 Measuring and Assessing Support Services: Intended Performance | 99 |
Chapter 6 Functional Data Modeling: Identifying the Drivers and Constraints of Actual Performance | 133 |
Chapter 7 Institutional Data Modeling: Looking Beyond the Data | 145 |
Chapter 8 Continuous Quality Improvement | 173 |
Afterword | 195 |
References | 197 |
Index | 215 |
List of Tables
Table 1. | Power Analysis of Functional Performance Indicators. | 14 |
Table 2. | MVVs Statements for a School of Pharmacy. | 19 |
Table 3. | Environmental Measurement to Support Institutional Definition. | 22 |
Table 4. | Institutional Environmental Data Summary. | 23 |
Table 5. | Environmental Data Aggregation. | 27 |
Table 6. | SWOT Analysis. | 29 |
Table 7. | Curriculum Measurement Tool. | 34 |
Table 8. | Course Structure Measurement. | 37 |
Table 9. | Curriculum Measurement Program Data Summary. | 39 |
Table 10. | Curriculum Assessment Institutional Assessment. | 40 |
Table 11. | Program Course Structure Data Summary. | 41 |
Table 12. | Institutional Course Structure Assessment. | 42 |
Table 13. | Program Learning Outcomes Measurement Rubric. | 44 |
Table 14. | Program Learning Objectives Measurement. | 46 |
Table 15. | Rubric Model. | 53 |
Table 16. | Program Learning Outcomes Measurement Rubric Model. | 54 |
Table 17. | Program Learning Outcomes Data Summary – Program Level. | 56 |
Table 18. | Program Learning Outcomes Assessment – Institutional Level. | 56 |
Table 19. | Program Learning Objectives Data Summary Tool. | 57 |
Table 20. | Institutional Learning Objectives Assessment. | 63 |
Table 21. | Institutional Mission Alignment Measurement. | 65 |
Table 22. | Institutional Values Alignment Measurement. | 68 |
Table 23. | Competitor Measurement. | 71 |
Table 24. | Target Populations Measurement. | 72 |
Table 25. | Market and Career Measurement. | 72 |
Table 26. | Infrastructure Measurement. | 74 |
Table 27. | Program Feasibility Data Summary. | 74 |
Table 28. | Program Feasibility Assessment. | 75 |
Table 29. | Learning Engagement Observation Form. | 79 |
Table 30. | Learning Experience Questionnaire. | 81 |
Table 31. | Student Learning Outcomes Portfolio. | 84 |
Table 32. | Learning Engagement Data Report. | 88 |
Table 33. | Distribution of Engagement Strategies for an Individual Instructor for Multiple Courses. | 89 |
Table 34. | Learning Engagement Data Summary. | 91 |
Table 35. | Learning Engagement Data Aggregation. | 92 |
Table 36. | Learning Experience Data Report. | 93 |
Table 37. | Learning Experience Data Summary. | 96 |
Table 38. | Learning Experience Data Aggregation. | 97 |
Table 39. | Mission, Vision, and Values for a Student Services Function. | 100 |
Table 40. | Student Life Measurement. | 103 |
Table 41. | Measurement of Internship/Externship Experiences. | 104 |
Table 42. | Academic Success Center Measurement. | 106 |
Table 43. | Library Questionnaire. | 107 |
Table 44. | Disabilities Services Measurement. | 109 |
Table 45. | Counseling Services Measurement. | 110 |
Table 46. | Career Services Measurement. | 112 |
Table 47. | Graduate Student Support Services Measurement. | 114 |
Table 48. | Student Life Service Assessment. | 116 |
Table 49. | Student Life Component Assessment. | 117 |
Table 50. | Internship/Externship Experiences Service Assessment. | 117 |
Table 51. | Internship/Externship Experiences Component Assessment. | 119 |
Table 52. | Academic Success Center Service Assessment. | 120 |
Table 53. | Academic Success Center Component Assessment. | 121 |
Table 54. | Library Service Assessment. | 122 |
Table 55. | Library Component Assessment. | 123 |
Table 56. | Disabilities Services Service Assessment. | 123 |
Table 57. | Disabilities Services Component Assessment. | 124 |
Table 58. | Counseling Services Service Assessment. | 125 |
Table 59. | Counseling Services Component Assessment. | 126 |
Table 60. | Career Services Service Assessment. | 127 |
Table 61. | Career Services Component Assessment. | 128 |
Table 62. | Assessment of Student Support Services Components. | 129 |
Table 63. | Graduate Assessment of Student Support Services Functional Assessment. | 130 |
Table 64. | Graduate Student Support Services Institutional Assessment. | 131 |
Table 65. | Correlation Matrix (Spearman Rho). | 136 |
Table 66. | KPI Clusters Based on the Strength of Correlation. | 137 |
Table 67. | Institutional Dashboard Summarizing Functional Assessments. | 141 |
Table 68. | Goal-Path Approach to Sensemaking. | 147 |
Table 69. | A Trending Analysis Using the Goal-Path Approach at Institutional Level. | 149 |
Table 70. | Identification and Articulation of the KPIs for the Institution. | 151 |
Table 71. | Trending Report of Sensemaking Data for the Institution. | 157 |
Table 72. | Percentage of Students Demonstrating Program Learning Objectives by Programs. | 158 |
Table 73. | Percentage of Students Demonstrating Program Learning Outcomes for All Programs. | 158 |
Table 74. | Strategic Constituency Analysis of Student Support Services KPIs. | 159 |
Table 75. | Institutional Student Support Service Responsibilities. | 159 |
Table 76. | Internal Feasibility KPIs Summary and Aggregation for All Programs. | 160 |
Table 77. | Competing Values Environmental Analysis. | 162 |
Table 78. | Institutional Effectiveness Executive Report. | 165 |
Table 79. | Action Planning Inputs. | 171 |
Table 80. | Action Planning Process. | 172 |
Table 81. | Institutional Effectiveness Report – Four Years. | 175 |
Table 82. | Definitions of Indicators in Institutional Effectiveness Report. | 177 |
Table 83. | Power Analysis of Functional Performance Indicators. | 178 |
Table 84. | Correlation Matrix for Performance Indicators. | 182 |
Table 85. | KPI Clusters of Strongest Correlations. | 184 |
Table 86. | Action Items. | 189 |
Table 87. | Action Planning. | 191 |
Author Biography
John Moye is a native of Jacksonville, FL, where he attended Jacksonville University. During his undergraduate and master’s degree experience, he studied with a series of forward-looking thought leaders in education from which he developed an interest and belief in the science of learning and the power and importance of education for all learners. These interests have accompanied him throughout his career and led to a focus on the performance, effectiveness, and responsibilities of higher education.
Dr Moye continued his pursuit of the science of learning through his Ph.D. studies at Florida State University, where he focused his research in the field of psychophysics. Heavily impacted by the burgeoning field of neuroscience, he examined the response of the human perceptual systems to sensory stimuli as a model for understanding learning as a psychophysical process in individuals and organizations. The conceptual frameworks contained in this text are based on the evidence of the psychophysics of learning that are still emerging in the academic learning literature.
Dr. Moye has held effectiveness positions with numerous institutions of higher learning in the United States, including Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, Capella University, and De Paul University, Chicago, IL, in which he has researched, developed, and applied these approaches to the development of relevant, innovative, and effective learning environments. In addition, he has contributed to a wide array of other institutions of higher learning as a consultant, which has provided a comprehensive perspective on the science of measurement and assessment in complex organizations.
Dr Moye believes the leverage point in the system of institutional improvement to be the availability of authentic, credible, and trustworthy information to make sense of institutional performance for effectiveness improvement efforts. The research and development of systematic assessments to measure the effectiveness of unique institutions is a focus of his ongoing professional efforts.
Foreword
This work seeks to catalyze discussion and thinking about the information required to measure, assess, and make sense of institutional performance with credible and trustworthy data. To those who believe it is possible to improve the performance of our institutions this work offers a method to improve service to students and society through data-informed problem-solving and decision-making.
To achieve this outcome requires data that objectively describe the “actual” performance of the institution, which the faculty and staff use to understand current performance and improve the future performance of their programs and institutions (Tadesse, Manathynga, & Gillies, 2018). The result is a system in which the principles of machine learning define the data processing functions and create a credible and trustworthy artificial intelligence for institutional effectiveness (Yousef, Allmer, Baştanlar, Özuysal, & Walker, 2013). The purpose of this work is to offer a fully aligned system of authentic assessments, which provide faculty and staff with credible and trustworthy information to monitor, demonstrate, and enhance institutional performance (Swaggerty & Broemmel, 2017).
The processes and procedures in this work adapt recent and current strategies of performance measurement, assessment, and sensemaking in the discipline of organizational effectiveness into a science-based approach to the assessment and sensemaking of institutional effectiveness in higher education (Cameron & Whetten, 2013). The principles of organizational assessment and the sciences of educational and psychological measurement and assessment define the content and structure of the information collected in this system (Knight, McLaughlin, & Howard, 2012). As such, this approach is a “best science” approach to institutional assessment and effectiveness. In this work, the goal is to present a fully-aligned system of assessments for institutional effectiveness, which are disciplined by appropriate technologies.
The methods and instruments employed in this assessment system emerged from research, design, development, and testing the results of their use as institutional effectiveness assessments for a cross-section of higher education institutions. These instruments have consistently yielded stable, statistically powerful, credible, and trustworthy data about the performance of the institution. These data inform authentic assessments, data modeling, and sensemaking functions to evaluate the effectiveness of the institution (Swaggerty & Broemmel, 2017).
The principles of machine learning and artificial intelligence frame the data modeling and sensemaking strategies to visualize actual institutional performance from multiple perspectives. The output of this approach is a system that provides credible, trustworthy, and meaningful data for the evaluation of effectiveness, which the human intelligence in the institution evaluates.
- Prelims
- Chapter 1 Defining, Measuring, and Assessing Effectiveness
- Chapter 2 Creating Shared Mission, Vision, and Values
- Chapter 3 Measuring and Assessing Program Structure: Intended Performance
- Chapter 4 Measuring and Assessing Instruction: Intended Performance
- Chapter 5 Measuring and Assessing Support Services: Intended Performance
- Chapter 6 Functional Data Modeling: Identifying the Drivers and Constraints of Actual Performance
- Chapter 7 Institutional Data Modeling: Looking Beyond the Data
- Chapter 8 Continuous Quality Improvement
- Afterword
- References
- Index