Assessment Evaluation and Research
According to ACPA and NASPA (2015), the Assessment, Evaluation, and Research competency includes “the ability to design, conduct, critique, and use various AER methodologies…to inform practice” (p. 20). Throughout my time as a graduate student, I have had many experiences that have led me to develop this area as one of my strengths. One particular contributor to this was my participation in two Educational Foundations and Inquiry (EDFI) courses, Statistics in Education and Research in Education. In the former, I read about and practiced several established methods of data collection and analysis. In the latter, I developed a research proposal that included sound research design elements. Moreover, I was able to consider both the effectiveness and ethical implications of different research methods. Throughout my time in the CSP program, I have continued to refine and strengthen the aforementioned knowledge and skills through various evaluation, assessment, and research processes. However, my work this semester with the alternative breaks program at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) has most contributed to my exemplary competence.
To begin the assessment and evaluation process at IUPUI, I was tasked with “select[ing] AER methods, methodologies, designs, and tools that fit with research and evaluation questions and with assessment and review purposes” (ACPA & NASPA, 2015, p. 20). This started with me reviewing the outcomes of the program and the institution. I then spoke with the director and other interns in the office regarding the goals of the assessment. After this, it was clear that they wanted a combination of quantitative and qualitative data for reference. To satisfy this need, I suggested creating an assessment plan that included both a survey and focus group. Therefore, I created the IUPUI Alternative Breaks Survey (see link below) using Qualtrics, the institution’s preferred survey software. Additionally, I developed a focus group protocol (see link below), which was intended to elicit more detailed qualitative responses to supplement the survey. By creating and implementing this for the program, I demonstrated the ability to “facilitate appropriate data collection for system/department-wide assessment and evaluation efforts using current technology and methods” (ACPA & NASPA, 2015, p. 20).
When creating the focus groups, I also advocated for the use of an informed consent document. After discussion with the director of the program, I created this document using a template provided by IUPUI’s Office of Research Compliance (see link below). Furthermore, I ensured I had completed the training for conducting low-risk data collection with human subjects. This is a training provided by the Institutional Review Board. Although these steps were merely suggestions in our assessment and research design, I determined this would be the best approach to ensure we were being the most ethical in our data collection. When discussing this importance with the director, I demonstrated my ability to “explain the necessity to follow institutional and divisional procedures and policies (e.g., IRB approval, informed consent) with regard to ethical assessment, evaluation, and other research activities” (ACPA & NASPA, 2015, p. 20).
Also, when developing the survey, I included a demographics section so the impact of the alternative breaks program across different identities could be understood. When determining terminology for the response options, I talked with the director, examined documents from professional organizations (e.g. the American College Personnel Association), and reviewed literature related to inclusion and social identities. After this review process, I made determinations about what terms should be included. Furthermore, I was sure to craft the response types to be inclusive of fluidity in identity. For example, the racial, gender, and sexual identity sections are optional and allow for the selection of multiple identities. Although this makes data analysis slightly more laborious, this was the most inclusive and ethical approach to collecting demographic information. Crafting this section in this way allowed me to “use culturally relevant and culturally appropriate terminology and methods to conduct and report AER findings” (ACPA & NASPA, 2015, p. 20).
During my focus group transcription, data analysis, and report writing, I have reflected on skills I have developed related to assessment, evaluation, and research. Although I have plenty of ways in which I still can grow my competence, my varied courses and experiences have helped me to craft my abilities in this area. As such, I feel that I can successfully and confidently advocate for and lead the creation and use of assessment, evaluation, and research within the higher education environment. For this reason, I believe I have developed an exemplary level of competence.
American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2015). Professional competency areas for student affairs practitioners. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/main/ACPA_NASPA_Professional_Competencies_FINAL.pdf