Learning and Enrollment Management

Dr. Susan Coia Gailey
Founder
Data-based Institutional Research, Assessment & Reporting Systems

Institutional research is needed to utilize assessment results. Research enlightens us on how to have an impact on outcomes that are important to us. Research identifies contributing factors so we can manage, or control, outcomes. Learning is one such outcome. Institutional research enables Learning Management, just as it enables Enrollment Management. Although learning and Enrollment Management are often separate pursuits, Enrollment Management has long term success with Learning Management ? students graduate and knowledgeable and competent alumni enhance the reputation of the institution in the workplace and community. Learning Management and Enrollment Management could not be more closely linked.

The limelight on bottom line results is not attenuating. In the public eye, the bottom line is addressed in terms such as return on investment (ROI) and gainful employment and associated measures are graduation rates, student loan debt, starting salaries and employment rates in one?s major field of study. Inherently student learning is a key objective in education. Learning has been considered necessary for graduation, gainful employment and overall life-long success ? professional and personal. Measuring learning outcomes and competencies for accountability has gained prominence in the higher education landscape.

Philosophically it has long been accepted that colleges groom lifelong learners. A strong liberal arts, or general education, curriculum develops and shapes the cognitive capacity of students, including those in career-path programs, to accommodate changes in the workforce and society. This is increasingly important when one considers the short half lives of many major fields of study. Moreover we want our alumni to lead positive changes in the workforce and society.

One may argue that measuring learning has been a tradition in education, a sector in which tests and grades are endemic. Historically, the institution?s role was providing a fertile environment for learning and the rest was up to the student. Today institutions are increasingly accountable for ensuring learning ? specifically, learning outcomes of value and relevance ? and proving learning through the rigor of objective measures which we term assessment.

Certainly, assessment of learning outcomes provides important feedback about the extent of student learning; that is, it tells us the extent to which learning objectives are achieved. However, assessment does not always tell us what to do to improve learning. When colleges assess learning, results often indicate that there is a need for improvement, so often we are back at the drawing board, but without knowing exactly what to change. The scenario below illustrates the dilemma and how to resolve it.

In the better of circumstances, an institution has performed: (a) a program review in which programs are reviewed for productivity and relevance, and (b) learning objectives of value are defined for each program, (c) a learning objectives-based curricula review, and then (d) a course review that structures delivery of curricula and establishes course sequencing and prerequisites. Additionally, grading is rubrics-centered for standardization across course sections taught by various faculty over time and implementation is monitored and realigned when needed to maintain the validity of rubrics and the reliability of grading. Faculty development covers various methods of instructional delivery. Student support services are in place such as academic advising and tutoring.

Given the value of a package of multiple measures, course-specific learning objectives are converted to survey items to be measured as learning outcomes in Course Evaluations. Students rate the degree to which they felt they achieved each learning objective and the extent to which they feel specific methods of instruction helped them learn. Students also rate support services and experiences.

Suppose 25% of our entering students report on Course Evaluations that they did not adequately master course-specific learning objectives. Both course grades and faculty feedback corroborate the statistic and with little variation across courses. The 25% figure is lower for sophomores, lower still for juniors and down to a handful for seniors. Twenty five percent of our entering class is too high a percentage to write off. Results suggest a shortfall in achieving important learning objectives. What do we do? In our ardent effort to improve learning we go back to the drawing board. We review curricula and instruction for ways to improve. What changes can we confidently make?

Suppose factors other than the course and its delivery impact learning of 25% of our entering class. In that case, a curricular or instructional change will be ineffective, at best, and possibly raise the 25% if we inadvertently change what works well. Research is necessary to enlighten assessment results. We need to know what factors impact student learning in order to strategically impose effective solutions.

As a start, examine the literature of research on national data bases for leads on factors that are associated with graduation. Research how these factors could pertain to your institution ? individually and collectively as profiles of ?successful? students. Which factors, and by which measures, predict learning and year-to-year persistence to graduation? For example, how might particular measures of academic preparation and ability to pay predict learning? How might the measures predict persistence to graduation? Research might reveal identical student profiles as predictors of learning and persistence to graduation. Thus, your assessment results may coincide with your year-to-year persistence rates. Presidents, Vice-Presidents of Enrollment Management and Provosts: take notice.

You can strategically utilize your assessment results to improve learning when curricular and instructional modifications are exhausted and you have identified other contributing factors. You center solutions on the other contributing factors. Through institutional research on enrollment management, underprepared applicants can be identified as at-risk before acceptance; research also can qualify major-specific preparation. Should some underprepared applicants be admitted, they can be targeted for early intervention. (Many ?Early Alert? systems kick in when the student is already in free fall.)

So, too, financially needy students can be identified as at risk. Informed by institutional research on the effective distribution of financial aid, discounts can be more effectively distributed ? and with budget sensitivity ? and merit-based scholarships can actually generate more tuition revenue for need-based grants. For underprepared and financially needy students (research shows a correlation), course loads might be reduced to 12 credits per semester to allow more study and tutoring time (with advising on course combinations based on levels of challenge), particularly for students who will, nonetheless, hold part-time jobs during semesters. Free summer sessions might keep these students on schedule, and can possibly be delivered on-line so students save money living at home and institutional operating costs are controlled.

In short, data-based institutional research integrates admissions, financial aid and learning for a holistic approach to Enrollment and Learning Management. Research enlightens and informs assessment results so that assessment results can be utilized to improve learning. Enrollment and Learning Management propels enrollment beyond one-year persistence to graduation and beyond, and promotes the caliber of alumni in the workplace. Consider the implications for return on investment, how alumni represent your institution in the workforce and community and the reputation you create for prospective students and employers.