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:
a) understanding why faculty may not engage.
b) what barriers there are to engagement.
Engaging Faculty in Assessment
So, let us discuss:
Why do faculty members not
engage in assessment on their own?
A General Framework for Discussion:
Behavioral Variability and
Behavioral Change
People vary in their complex behaviors
(obviously).
Assessment participation is a complex
behavior.
A Framework for Discussion
For any complex human behavior there is
a component of ability and a component
of willingness.
A Framework for Discussion
Variability in the behavior of assessment
participation may be accounted for by:
a) variability in Ability and
b) variability in Willingness.
c) (An interaction term, but who cares!)
Level of MOTIVATION
Low (Willingness)
Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL
(Ability)
A Framework for Discussion
High
Low
High
Level of MOTIVATION
(Willingness)
Low
Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL
(Ability)
High
Low
High
Level of MOTIVATION
(Willingness)
Low
Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL
(Ability)
High
Low
High
Level of MOTIVATION
(Willingness)
Low
Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL
(Ability)
High
Low
High
Level of MOTIVATION
(Willingness)
Low
Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL
(Ability)
High
Low
High
…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.
Level of MOTIVATION
(Willingness)
Low
Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL
(Ability)
High
Low
High
Level of MOTIVATION
(Willingness)
Low
Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL
(Ability)
High
Low
High
The TTU Assessment Office is particularly well prepared to help
address the Knowledge/Skill axis!
Level of MOTIVATION
Low (Willingness)
Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL
(Ability)
High
Low
High
A “Behaviorist” psychological model (reward/punishment to
increase/decrease target behaviors) may be useful in thinking
about moving people up the Motivation/Willingness scale.
Level of MOTIVATION
Low (Willingness)
Level of KNOWLEDGE & SKILL
(Ability)
High
Low
High
Generic Behaviorist Framework for
Changing Level of Motivation
Outcome on targeted behavior
Reward
Punishment
(increase behavior) (decrease behavior)
Add
Stimulus
Conventional Reward (e.g.
Merit pay increase /
Promotion)
Conventional Punishment
(e.g. addition to workload)
Remove
Stimulus
Remove aversive stimuli
(e.g. course waiver!)
Remove pleasant stimuli
(e.g. diminished reputation
among peers)
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!
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.
Testing the model
Recalcitrant Faculty Member #1:
“Why should I waste my time on a
completely bogus, wasteful, and
burdensome bureaucratic process!?”
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.
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.”
Testing the model
Assessment Helper #1:
“Your grades are worthless to
us. We’re here to help you do
assessment right.”
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!
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?
Recognize the adaptive challenges
we present to faculty
1. Additional work.
2. Vagueness in requirements.
3. Potential for aversive stimuli (negative feedback),
usually with very little potential for reward.
4. Bureaucratic entanglement.
What
Economic
Social
Resources
Psychological
Merit pay
Recognition from
College, University,
students, etc.
Support:
(graduate
assistants, etc.)
Increased sense of
competence
Tenure
Increased status and
reputation
Lower stress…
Improved sense of
“citizenship”
Increased personal
satisfaction with
work performance
Time: Course
waiver…