Table Of Content

Buchan, V., 1:9, 1:15 Eastern Michigan University (EMU) Budget allocation, 1:4 5:9, 5:13 Business mathematics course evaluation, 3:7—9 Education Commission of the States (ECS), 3:1 ndex Business schools, communication skills assess- E sducational Testing Service (ETS), 2:10, 5:9 ment, 4:7-8 §-123 Volume 8 ‘ampus Profile, Winthrop University, 6:9-10 smployer attitudes, 2:6-7, 6:3, 6:7-8, 6:15 “ampus Strategies: alumni survey, 6:12—13; nnis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test Accreditation: and assessment requirements, evaluation of strategic plan for multicultural swellP,. T., 1:7, 3:1-2, 3:12-13, 3:15, 4 2:3, 2:14; for interior design programs, 2:6 diversity, 4:9, 4:14; general education assess Administrative support, 1:6 ment, 5:9, 5:13, 6:12—13: major assessment xistential approach, 4:5—6 Admissions policies, standards-based, |:1—2, $:7. $:13 -Xit interviews, 6:10 1:7, 1:12-13 ‘apstone experiences, 4:4, 4:6 aculty assessment: Katz-Henry development Ahmadi, R. T., 2:6-7 ‘ase study assessment, 3:4—5, 3:15 model and, 3:16; student involvement in Albone, K. R., 1:6 ‘enter for Postsecondary Research and Plan 3:14 Alumni surveys, 6:10, 6:12—13 ning, Indiana University, 1:13 aculty communication 10-11 Alverno, | ‘enter for the Study of Higher Education, 1:13 5:15 American Association for Higher Education “hemical engineering assessment, 4:4, 4:6 aculty development: assessment and, 5:1 assessment conference, 6:3 ‘lass syllabi, 6:1—2, 6:3, 6:14—-15 matrix approach to, 4:3, 4:13; peer review American College Test (ACT) Assessment, 3:6 Classroom, as learning organization, 3:7—9 and, 2:3, 2:14, 3:12, 5:1€ American College Test (ACT) ASSET tests ‘learinghouse for Higher Education Assess aculty involvement: faculty resistance to 3 6 ment Instruments, 2:14, 4:10 5:1-—2, 5:3, 5:12: in outcomes assessment American College Test (ACT) Collegiate As ‘ollaboration: faculty/staff, 6:3; general edu 4:56 promoting, 1:10—11 sessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) cation/major, 2:16; high school/university 5:15. See also Peer review 3:6 . 1:12-13; among social work schools Faculty survey on grades, 2 American College Testing (ACT) 1995 nation Faculty views on outcomes al survey, 2 , 2:12-13, 2:14, 2:15, 3:13 ‘ollege Student Experiences Questionnaire Faculty-driven assessment, | 3:15, 4:2 (CSEQ), 1:3, 1:13, 1:14, 2:16 Federal service academy assessment Amiran, M. R., 2:9, 2:15 ‘ollegiate Assessment of Academic Proficien Final exam, case study ipproach, 5:4 Arkansas, 3 cy, 2:11 Florida 3 12 Assessment: grass-roots issues in, 4:11; infra ‘olorado, 1:1-2, 1:12-13, 3:12 Formative evaluation, 5 structure, 1:4; obstacles to, 3:10-11 13 ‘olorado School of Mines, 1:12 Fuhrmann, B.S 5 7 5 3:15, 5:1-2, 5:3, 5:12; scholarship, 6:13 olorado State University, 1:9, 1:15 Fund for the Improvement ¢ f Postsecondary Assessment advisory boards, 6:9 ‘ommunication skills: assessment in business Education (FIPSI support d project Assessment centers, 3:10—11 schools, 4:7—8; faculty/employer/policymaker 3-16. 4:16. 5-16. 6:16 Assessment in Practice: Putting Principles to expectationso f, 6:3, 6:7-8, 6:15 unding: institutiona Work on College Campuses, 2:14 ommunity College Strategies: national survey 3: 10-11 4{ssessment in Student Affairs: A Guide for of assessment practices, 4:10; video telecon Gardner, L. L., 4:7-8 Practitioners, 6:11 ferencing, 2:8 General education assessment: alumni vey Assessment measures/instruments: in campus ommunity College Student Experiences and, 6:12—13; in campus program, 6:9-—10 program, 6:9—10; of critical thinking abilities Questionnaire (CCSEQ), 1:3, 1:13, 1:14—-15 collaboration with, and major, 2:16; as major 2:10—-11, 4:12-13, 5:9, 5:13, 5:14—15; grass ommunity-Oriented Dental Education (CODE) 1:6; Tasks in Critical Thinking test for, 5:9 roots issues of, 4:11; home-grown versus 1:16 5-13 standardized, 5:11; matrix, 4:3, 4:13; re ‘ontent assessment: in business mathematics George Washington University (GWU), 3:4 source on, 2:14; standardized, 3:6; of student course, 3:7—9; K-12 standards, 1:1, 1:12 Georgia, 3:12 experiences, 1:3, 1:13, 1:14—15; student in ontinuous Quality Improvement (CQI), 3:8 Goal structure, 1:4 volvement in developing, 3:3, 3:14; in two ‘ooper I I 3:6 Goals, shared, 1:6 year institutions, national survey of, 4:10 orrallo,S ., 4:1—2, 4:15 Grades, meaning of Assessment programs attributes and measures ‘ornell Critical Thinking Test, 2:11 Graduate student research on quality improve of good, 1:4—5; in campus profile, 6:9-10 ouncil for Higher Education Accreditation ment, 5:8 disseminating information about, to faculty (CHEA), 2:14 Griffith, F. A staff, 1:10—11, 5:5-6, 5:15 ourse evaluation, 3:4—5 Haas, T. J Baird’s model of college outcomes, 2:10 ritical thinking assessment: measures/instru Harrington, C. f Baker, D. G., 4:11, 4:14 ments, 2:10—11, 4:12—13, 5:9, 5:13, 5:14—-15 High school assessment, | Ball State University, 2:6 national surveys, 4:1 2, 4:15 History major assessment, 5 Bambenek, J. J., 3:3, 3:14 ‘rystal City Secondary Education Program, 3:4 Humanistic approach, 4:5—6 Banks, D., 2:8 sokasy, J. A., 4:5-6 Indiana University Schoolo f Nursing, 4:3 Banta, T. W., 1:3, 1 urriculum design, and educational philoso Industry needs assessment, 2:6 5:12, 5:15, 6:3 phy, 4:5-6 Infrastructureo f assessment, |:4 Barker, J. R., 5:8 Data ownership, 4:11 Institutional assessment: federal service acad Bassoppo-Moyo, S., 5:3, 5:8 DavisD.,, 6:1—2, 6:3, 6:14—15 emy model, 2:4—5; student satisfaction mea Behavioristic approach to education, 4:5-6 Departmental assessment, 5:1—2, 5:11 sures for, 1:8—9; students as assessorsi n, 3:3 Bennion, D. H., 1:10—11, 5:9, 5:13 Developmental assessment program, 4:11, 4:14 3:14 Bers, T., 6:1—2, 6:3, 6:14—15 Department of Labor Secretary's Commission Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Sys Bibliography of Assessment Instruments, 2:14 on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), 4:2 tem (IPEDS) surveys, 2:14 Black, K. E., 2:14 Domholdt, E., 5:5—6, 5:15 Interior design programs, 2:6 Bradley,J . L., 4:10 Dooris, M. J., 6:12—13 lowa State University, 4:3, 4:13 Jones, E. A., 6:3, 6:7-8, 6:15 Peer review: and national assessment, 2:3, planning conference, 4:2, 4:15; support ser- Journal of Developmental Education, 4:14 2:14; and state-based assessment, 3:12; of vice for, 3:10—11 Juillerat, S., 1:8-9 teaching, 5:16 Steele, J.M ., 2:1-2, 2:12-13, 2:14, 2:15, 5:3 Katz-Henry faculty development model, 3:16 Pennsylvania State University, 6:12—13 Stevens, G., 2:4—5 Kent State University, 4:11, 4:14 Performance funding, 2:3, 3:12, 5:8 Student affairs assessment, 6:11 Kentucky, 1:7, 3:12 Performance-based assessment, 1:1, 1:12 Student development, 2:10, 4:11, 4:14 Koch, R., 3:4—5, 3:15 2:11 Student involvement: in course evaluation, Kohlberg’s measure of moral development, Philosophies of education, 4:5-6 3:4—5, 3:15; in evaluation of portfolio assess- 2:11 Pike,G . R., 1:14—15, 2:10-11, 4:12-13, 5:14-15 ment technique, 6:4—6, 6:13; in institutional Kuh, G., 1:13 Placement tests, 3:6, 4:11, 4:14 assessment, 1:8~9, 3:3, 3:14; motivation for, Language instruction, 6:16 Portfolio assessment, 6:3; student perspectives 4:11; in outcomes assessment, 4:5 Leadership for assessment, 1:5, 5:4, 5:6 on, 6:4—6, 6:13 Student iearning assessment. See Outcomes Learning organization, 3:7—9 Poster sessions, 5:5—6, 5:15 assessment Lehman, P. W., 1:14 Process assessment, in business mathematics Student paper contests, 4:7-8 Lissitz, R.W ., 3:10—-11 course, 3:7-9 Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), 1:8-9 Ludwig, M., 3:4—5, 3:15 Professional education program assessment, Student satisfaction surveys, 1:8—9, 3:3, 5:11, Lund,J . P., 2:14 1:9, 1:15, 2:6-7, 4:4, 4:6, 6:4—6, 6:13 6:10 Lutz, D. A., 2:14 Proficiency-Based Admissions Standards Support service, for state-mandated assess- Major assessment, 2:16, 5:7, 5:13, 6:4—6, 6:13 (PASS), 1:7 ment, 3:10—-11 Markiecki, H., 6:11 Program Monitoring, 1:9 Syllabus analysis, 6:1—2, 6:3, 6:14—15 Maryland Assessment Resource Center (MARC), Prus, J., 6:9-10 Symonette, H., 4:9, 4:14 3:10-11 Quality assurance (QA) teaching, 4:7-8 Tasks in Critical Thinking, 5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Quality improvement, 3:8, 5:8 Taylor,W ., 6:1—-2, 6:3, 6:14 3:14 Reflective Judgment Interview (RJI), 2:11, Team learning, 3:7—-9 Matrices, for assessment planning, 4:3, 4:13 5:14-15 Tebo-Messina, M., 6:9-10 McBer’s Comprehensive Cognitive Assess Reid, R. L., 5:3, 5:4, 5:6 Tennessee, 1:13, 3:12 ment Battery, 2:11 Report of ACT’s Research on Postsecondary Texas, 3:12 Measure of Epistemological Reflection, 2:1 | Assessment Needs, 2:14 Total Quality Management (TQM), 2:4 Minnesota Department of Education, 6:16 Reports, assessment, 1:5, 5:2 natin, J., 3:4—5, 3:15 Muffo, J. A., 5:1-2, 5:3, 5:11 Research partnerships, 4:16 ndergraduate research program (UROP), 4:16 Multicultural diversity strategic plan, evalua Rodenhiser, R. W., 1:9, 1:15 niform Minority Information System (UMIS), tion of, 4:9, 4:14 Rosenzweig, M., 3:7-9 4:9 Murrell, P., 1:13, 1:14 Rowan College of New Jersey, 1:6 niversity of Coloradoa t Denver (CU-D), 1:12 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), 4:15 Saint Joseph College, 2:16 niversity of Indianapolis, 4:7-8, 5:5—6, 5:15 National assessment: peer review and, 2:3, Santa Barbara City College, 1:3, 1:13 niversity of Memphis, 1:13, 5:8 2:14; state-based assessment and, 3:1; sur Schon, D. A., 6:3 niversity of Michigan, 4:16 veys of, 4:1-2, 4:15 Schreiner, L. A., 1:8-9 niversity of Nebraska, 5:16 National Assessment of Educational Progress Schuh, J. H., 6:11 niversity of North Dakota (UND), 1:9, 1:15 (NAEP), 4:15 Segovis, J.C., 3:7-9 Jniversity of Northern Colorado (UNC), 1:12 National Center for Education Statistics Senate Committee on the Assessment of Gen- niversity of Southern Indiana (USI), 5:4, 5:6 (NCES), 2:3, 2:14; national inventory, 3:1—2, eral Education (SCAGE), 2:6 niversity of Tennessee, Knoxville, 6:4—6, 6:13 3:12-13, 3:15; surveys, 4:1—2, 4:15 Senior projects, 4:4, 4:6 niversity of Wisconsin—River Falls, 1:3 National Center for Postsecondary Teaching, Senior survey, 6:10 niversity of Wisconsin System (UWS), 4:9 Learning, and Assessment (NCPTLA), 4:1, Serow, R. C., 4:11 4:19 4:2,6 :3, 6:7-8, 6:15 Shaeiwitz, J. A., 4:4, 4:6 peraft, M. L., 6:11 National Council for Interior Design Qualifica- Smith, E. D., 1:4—5 rban studies major assessment, 5:7, 5:13 tion (NCIDQ) test, 2:6—7 Smith, M. L., 4:10 U.S. Coast Guard Academy (CGA), 2:4—5 National Education Goal 6.5, 2:3, 3:1, 4:1, 6:7 Snead State Community College (SSCC), 3:6 Video teleconferencing, 2:8 National Education Goals, 2:10, 4:1—2, 4:15, Social work programs: collaborative assess- Virginia, 1:4—5, 3:12 6:7 ment of, 1:9, 1:15; portfolio assessment in, Virginia Commonwealth University, 5:7, 5:13 New Jersey Dental School, 1:16 6:4—-6, 6:13 Virginia Community College System (VCCS), New Jersey Institute for Collegiate Teaching South Dakota, 3:12 2:8 and Learning, 3:16 Speech communication skills, faculty/employer/ Virginia Polytechnic and State University (Vir . North Carolina State University, 4:11 policymaker expectations of, 6:7-8, 6:15 ginia Tech), 5:1 11 Northeast Missouri State University (NMSU), Spicuzza, F. J., 6:3, 6:4—6, 6:13 Virtual university, 5:10—11 3:3, 3:14 Standards-based high school education, Wainer- Yaffe, M., 3:10—11 Nursing curriculum, 4:4-6 1:12-13 Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, Oakton Community College, 6: 1-2, 6:14—15 State policy: assessment needs and, 2:1-2, 2:11, 4:12-13 Oblander, F. W., 2:14 2:12-13, 2:15, 3:13; for K-12 standards-based West Virginia University (WVU), 4:4, 4:6 Oregon, 1:7, 3:12 education, l 1:1, 1:2, 1:7, 1:12; and national as- Western Governors’ University (WGU), 5:10—11 Outcomes assessment, student learning: faculty sessment, 2 3, 2:14; national inventory of, Winthrop University, 6:9—10 leadership in, 5:4, 5:6; faculty/employer/ 3:12-13 Wisconsin, 3:12 policymaker views on, 6:3, 6:7—8, 6:15; na- State University of New York College, Fredo- Work,S . D., 1:10—11, 5:9, 5:13 tional survey, 2:1—2, 2:12—13, 2:15; philo nia, 2:9, 2:15 Writing skills: assessment in business schools, sophical foundations and, 4:5—6 State-level assessment: electronic, 5:10—1 1; na- 4:7-8; faculty/employer/policymaker expec- Pace, B., 1:3, 1:13, 1:14 tional inventory, 3:1—2, 3:12—13, 3:15, 4:2; tations of, 6:7—8, 6:15 cd