Challenges and Barriers

Abstract

Sharing data between departments and within the division of student affairs provides multiple challenges in each step of the assessment loop, such as identifying outcomes, gathering evidence, interpreting data, and implementing change in institutional policy and practice (Maki, 2012). Challenges to gather, interpret, and share data include technological challenges, including data-sharing software, and logistical challenges to find where data is stored to retrieve data. In addition, implementing change as a result of what is learned from the assessment might cause political and cultural challenges based on the readiness of the area impacted by the assessment outcomes. Additionally, competing priorities at colleges and universities have stakeholders vying for diminishing financial resources (Roberts, 2015). This chapter addresses the barriers and challenges to student affairs assessment and gives examples of various structures and solutions. Understanding BarriersHistorical Perspective. Assessment in student affairs is not new, but how student affairs divisions assess student experiences and outcomes and what information or evidence institutional and external stakeholders need has changed within the last 10 years (Culp, 2012;Schuh, 2013). Based on our past experiences and conversations with others in the field, student affairs departments have historically focused on collecting program participation numbers and whether or not participants were satisfied with not only the program, but other logistical elements, such as the location, timing, and dining options. Within the past 10 years, accrediting agencies and policy and lawmakers have requested more data and information on what students learn as a result of their programs, both in the curricular and cocurricular elements (Schuh, 2013). For more experienced practitioners in student affairs, their graduate preparation programs may not have included an assessment course, so learning a new language around student NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH, no. 175