1 / 27

Engaging Faculty in Assessment Jason Rinaldo Director of Assessment Rawls College of Business (Summer 2010)

Engaging Faculty in Assessment Jason Rinaldo Director of Assessment Rawls College of Business (Summer 2010). Engaging Faculty in Assessment I believe that getting to an answer to the question “How do we engage?” involves: understanding why faculty may not engage.

trudy
Download Presentation

Engaging Faculty in Assessment Jason Rinaldo Director of Assessment Rawls College of Business (Summer 2010)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Engaging Faculty in Assessment Jason Rinaldo Director of Assessment Rawls College of Business (Summer 2010)

  2. Engaging Faculty in Assessment I believe that getting to an answer to the question “How do we engage?” involves: understanding why faculty may not engage. what barriers there are to engagement.

  3. Engaging Faculty in Assessment So, let us discuss: Why do faculty members not engage in assessment on their own?

  4. A General Framework for Discussion: Behavioral Variability and Behavioral Change People vary in their complex behaviors (obviously). Assessment participation is a complex behavior.

  5. A Framework for Discussion For any complex human behavior there is a component of ability and a component of willingness.

  6. Variability in the behavior of assessment participation may be accounted for by: variability in Ability and variability in Willingness. (An interaction term, but who cares!) A Framework for Discussion

  7. High A Framework for Discussion Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL (Ability) High Level of MOTIVATION (Willingness) Low Low

  8. High Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL (Ability) High Level of MOTIVATION (Willingness) Low Low

  9. Antagonistic, yet Well Informed & Able Well Informed & Able , Motivated, and Engaged High Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL (Ability) High Level of MOTIVATION (Willingness) Low Poorly Informed, yet Motivated & Engaged Poorly Informed & Antagonistic Low

  10. Antagonistic, yet Well Informed & Able Well Informed & Able , Motivated, and Engaged High Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL (Ability) High Level of MOTIVATION (Willingness) Low Poorly Informed, yet Motivated & Engaged Poorly Informed & Antagonistic Low

  11. Antagonistic, yet Well Informed & Able Well Informed & Able , Motivated, and Engaged High Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL (Ability) High Level of MOTIVATION (Willingness) Low Poorly Informed, yet Motivated & Engaged Poorly Informed & Antagonistic Low

  12. …Makes me consider how our faculty distribute along these two dimensions, and how or whether they may have changed in the past 5 years or so. It also seems useful when considering individual faculty with whom I’m interacting. If they are away from average on either of these, it calls for different type of discussion and a different focus.

  13. Antagonistic, yet Well Informed & Able Well Informed & Able , Motivated, and Engaged High Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL (Ability) High Level of MOTIVATION (Willingness) Low Poorly Informed, yet Motivated & Engaged Poorly Informed & Antagonistic Low

  14. Antagonistic, yet Well Informed & Able Well Informed & Able , Motivated, and Engaged High Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL (Ability) High Level of MOTIVATION (Willingness) Low Poorly Informed, yet Motivated & Engaged Poorly Informed & Antagonistic Low

  15. Antagonistic, yet Well Informed & Able The TTU Assessment Office is particularly well prepared to help address the Knowledge/Skill axis! Well Informed & Able , Motivated, and Engaged High Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL (Ability) High Level of MOTIVATION (Willingness) Low Poorly Informed, yet Motivated & Engaged Poorly Informed & Antagonistic Low

  16. Antagonistic, yet Well Informed & Able A “Behaviorist” psychological model (reward/punishment to increase/decrease target behaviors) may be useful in thinking about moving people up the Motivation/Willingness scale. Well Informed & Able , Motivated, and Engaged High Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL (Ability) High Level of MOTIVATION (Willingness) Low Poorly Informed, yet Motivated & Engaged Poorly Informed & Antagonistic Low

  17. Generic Behaviorist Framework for Changing Level of Motivation

  18. Strengths of the behaviorist framework: Provides a classification scheme for all of the approaches or interventions that we might imagine as useful to change behavior. Limitations of the Behaviorist framework: Merely provides a classification scheme for all of the approaches that we might imagine to change behavior. We know what rewards and punishments are available, and the likely downstream consequences!

  19. Lastly, the Ability and Willingness axes are “artificially orthogonal” The dimension of Willingness and that of Ability are related to each other. Rather than being crossed over each other as if independent, we would expect that as a person’s perception of their level of knowledge and ability changes, their motivation to participate would also change.

  20. Testing the model Recalcitrant Faculty Member #1: “Why should I waste my time on a completely bogus, wasteful, and burdensome bureaucratic process!?”

  21. Testing the model Recalcitrant Faculty Member #1: “Why should I waste my time on a completely bogus, wasteful, and burdensome process!?” -Very Low on X axis! -Unknown on Y axis -Statement implies that there are very specific barriers to rapid movement up on X, and that WILL would be there otherwise.

  22. The derivative communication, in the context of our framework is: “If the process can be made legitimate, or if the perception can be changed, then I might be inclined to actively participate.”

  23. Testing the model Assessment Helper #1: “Your grades are worthless to us.  We’re here to help you do assessment right.”

  24. The derivative communication by this assessment person, in the context of our framework is: “I am going to offer help in moving you up on the Y-axis (knowledge/ability).I am thoroughly unimpressed with your current efforts at assessment, and you need my help.” The model clarifies that a clumsy attempt at moving someone up on Y can result in much larger movement down on X!

  25. Engaging Faculty in Assessment So, let us discuss: a) Why do faculty members not engage in assessment on their own? b) What barriers there are to engagement?

  26. Recognize the adaptive challenges we present to faculty Additional work. Vagueness in requirements. Potential for aversive stimuli (negative feedback), usually with very little potential for reward. Bureaucratic entanglement.

  27. What

More Related