1 / 7

Higher Education Content Work Group 2015-2016 Update

Review of 2015 processes, recommendations for core changes, membership review, survey insights, and key considerations for educational research focus. Focus on stability, cost reduction, and adapting to modern needs.

fiorella-gohery
Download Presentation

Higher Education Content Work Group 2015-2016 Update

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. 2015 Design and Content Work group Co-chaired By Ron Huesman and Steve Brint

  2. Members • Amanda Brodish: Pittsburgh • Diane L Beaudoin: Purdue • Gregg Thomson: SERU PR • Karen Zaruba: Michigan • Kelly Kadiec: Irvine • Mark Troy: Texas A&M • Michael Roona: Merced • Thomas Dohm: Minnesota

  3. Process and changes • DCW first time in 2014 • Develop list of recommendations • Membership review & comment • PR make final decision • Reduced core • Freedom to choose modules • Archiving and historical trail of changes from 2010 forward: finalizing

  4. The core is shrinking: Believe it or not! Not counting 2nd major section

  5. SERU AAUFreedom to choose: Meant modules still used (11 schools in 2014)

  6. 2015-2016 Outline • Principles • Minimal changes to core for 2015 • Reviewed survey and reps concerns from 2014 administration • Mobile friendly survey for 2016 • Replacement or supplement? Pilots? • Regardless; need to address item types and length • Identify items of institutional improvement and focus items for research aligned with a yearly research agenda

  7. Even if not perfect….. • Agreement: once major revisions occur will maintain core for a set period of time (x years). • Stability/comparability: longitudinal analyses, especially true when not all institutions administer every year • Reduce costs: programming and data base management

More Related