 |
|
|
A Primer on Writing Outcomes on Student Learning and Development
for Student Affairs/Services Professionals
By Marilee J. Bresciani, Ph.D.
Associate Professor for Postsecondary Education
Outcomes-based assessment, to some, seems as foreign of a concept as myelin sheathing mutation does to others. While outcomes based assessment seems to grow in popularity, at least in its referral, its systemic and pervasive practice continues to remain somewhat elusive. Many have discussed the reasons why the practice of effective, efficient, and enduring outcomes-based assessment is not pervasive (Allen, 2004; Banta & Associates, 2002; Bresciani, 2006; Bresciani, Zelna, and Anderson, 2004; Maki, 2004; Mentkowski & Associates, 2000; Palomba & Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004; Upcraft & Schuh, 1996). A common reason cited by all of these authors is the challenge that many professionals have in understanding what outcomes-based assessment really is and in particular, many have difficulty drafting meaningful outcomes. This article seeks to illustrate some considerations for student affairs/services professionals when writing their intended outcomes as a part of the planning for carrying out effective, efficient, and enduring outcomes-based assessment.
What is Outcomes-Based Assessment?
Outcomes-based assessment has many meanings (Palomba & Banta, 1999). Regardless of which meaning you choose to adopt in your practice, you will notice that many of these definitions have the ideal of continuous improvement in common (Allen, 2003; Banta & Associates, 2002; Bresciani, Zelna, & Anderson, 2004; Maki, 2004; Palomba & Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004). What this means is that there is purposeful planning in the delivery and evaluation of intended end results. In addition, the evaluation process is designed so the information gathered can be used to inform meaningful recommendations about how the intended outcomes or end results can be met at a greater level of quality for the group that was included in the outcomes-based assessment process.
In outcomes-based assessment, the professional is intending to evaluate the end results of the “doing” in a manner that specifies what she wants to have accomplished, how she plans to deliver it, how she plans to evaluate it, and then later reports on what she has learned about what she intended to accomplish in a manner that allows her to make decisions to specifically improve the “doing.” In outcomes-based assessment, the professional is simply asking and answering the following questions:
• “What
are we trying to do and why? or
• What
is my program supposed to accomplish? or
• What do I want students to be able to do and/or know as a result of my workshop/orientation?
• How well are we doing it?
• How do we know?
• How do we use the information to improve the delivery of doing or celebrate successes?
• Do the improvements we make work?” (Bresciani, 2006)
Outcomes-based assessment is simply a systematic way to purposefully reflect, plan, and make decisions on the end results of our activity.
What are Outcomes?
Outcomes are sometimes differentiated as either intended outcomes or actual outcomes (Palomba and Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004). Intended outcomes describe what one hopes the student will be able to know and/or do as the end result of the activity, workshop, class, or orientation session. Actual outcomes are what you discover when you identify what was gained from the activity, workshop, class, or orientation session (Palomba and Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004).
Differentiating between intended outcomes and actual outcomes may clarify some of the confusion that results when one first begins writing outcomes. For instance, one of the first steps in planning outcomes-based assessment is to write outcomes. If a professional thinks that you want him to write what he actually discovered, the professional may begin by focusing on evaluation methods first and then the results generated from the evaluation method. However, in the aforementioned definition of outcomes-based assessment, what is actually being requested is that the professional write intended outcomes; in other words what is it that you expect for the student to be able to know and/or do as a result of the activity you are planning. You are not asking him to write actual results at this beginning stage.
Thus, intended outcomes are exactly that; they are the intended end results of your planning. Outcomes embody the specific and identifiable illustration of what you want participants to take away from your activity (Bresciani, Zelna, & Anderson, 2004; Palomba and Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004). With intended outcomes you are answering the following question, “what is it that you want the student to be able to know or do as an end result of their participation in an activity, course, or workshop?”
From where do Outcomes
Originate?
Outcomes often originate from an organizational mission statement or broad values that are often depicted as goals. While organizational strategic planning may frame organizational purpose and values (Freeman, Bresciani, & Bresciani, 2004; Upcraft and Schuh, 1996); those same purpose and values statements may also inform the evaluation plan for outcomes-based assessment and thus, they inform the articulation of outcomes (Palomba and Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004).
For example, if an organization has a strategic plan and therefore an assumed value for improving retention rates; then members of the organization would ideally identify which of their activities directly or indirectly contributes to that organizational value and begin to identify outcomes for those activities. To take this example farther, imagine that you are the new senior officer of a student affairs/services division; you read in the institutional strategic plan that the organization values increasing their first to second year retention rates. As you examine your organization, you may immediately discover that you have several units with interventions and activities designed to promote engagement. Thus, you can then ask the leaders of these activities to draft outcomes that illustrate the detail of the engagement they expect students to demonstrate as a result of their activity. The outcomes related to engagement ties those organizations back to the institutional goal of increasing retention.
Similarly, if your institution values access, than you would identify where in your framework of services and programming you have initiatives that relate to access. If you don’t have typical access oriented services in your locus of control, than you may want to see how you can design and deliver outreach opportunities that promote access. An example of a program for parents, guardians, prospective students, and high school guidance counselors would be a one hour informational session where you illustrate how community can be created in a living learning environment as well as the academic and social support that is purposefully designed into that living learning program. Intended outcomes of your one hour workshop may be simply to ask participants to be able to:
1) identify the social advantages of participating in a living learning environment,
2) identify the academic support resources that are present in a living learning environment, and
3) identify the transitional/emotional support resources that are present in a living learning environment.
Finally, you may simply conclude your evaluation by asking the participants of the workshop about:
1) whether they were aware of this type of living and learning support prior to this workshop, and
2) whether they feel that if they engaged in such an opportunity, they would feel more likely to succeed in college.
These last two questions, while not phrased as outcomes, provide you with an opportunity to gather some exploratory data that may later be made into outcome statements, which may help you tie this type of activity back into your institutional goal of access.
Outcomes may also originate from professional standards or professional publications. For example, the Council on Academic Standards has many publications that assist student affairs/services professionals with identifying specific standards as well as intended outcomes for their practice (Strayhorn, 2006). It may be very helpful for practitioners to adopt these suggested standards and outcomes as their own or use them as a guide to adapt them to their own institutional practice. Similarly, ACPA and NASPA have published Learning Reconsidered and Learning Reconsidered 2 in order to offer additional learning outcomes for consideration.
Regardless from what values the outcomes originate, it is imperative to engage in conversations among professional staff and faculty to ensure the outcomes have meaning and to ensure that they are implemented with regard to purposeful planning (Bresciani, 2006). To simply adopt what another institution has done or what a publication says to do may set your staff up for failure as outcomes must originate from shared values, goals, and a purpose that has meaning to the organization. Otherwise the outcomes themselves will have no meaning (Allen, 2004; Banta & Associates, 2002; Bresciani, 2006; Kuh et alia, 2005a&b; Maki, 2004; Manning et alia, 2006; Mentkowski & Associates, 2000; Palomba & Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004).
Some institutions, whose members seem at a loss with their goals and mission, often start with intended outcomes because doing so seems more concrete. Then, in time, the culmination of their intended outcomes and actual outcomes informs their organizational goals, mission, and purpose.
How do you Write Outcomes?
Stephen Covey (1989) made the phrase, “begin with the end in mind” quite popular. While he may not have been the first to have said it, he gets credit for the citation. In any event, beginning with the end in mind is what drafting intended outcomes or intended end results is all about. When you begin with the end in mind, you literally envision what you want to have occur as a result of all of your planning, your investment of time, personnel, and a myriad of other resources. When you begin with the end in mind, you start with what you want the end result to be, then you a) determine the vehicle best designed to deliver that intended end result, b) plan and organize to make it happen, c) do it, and d)evaluate the extent to which you have accomplished what you planned to accomplish. Thus, articulating intended end results is the beginning of implementing outcomes-based assessment; not the end.
In drafting outcomes, there are many resources that can offer detailed advice on how to draft outcomes (Allen, 2004; Banta & Associates, 2002; Bresciani, et alia, 2004; Bresciani, 2006; Kuh et alia, 2005a&b; Maki, 2004; Manning et alia, 2006; Mentkowski & Associates, 2000; Palomba & Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004). This article offers a very brief compilation of these authors’ advice.
1)
First, select
something that you want to evaluate.
Some organizations go to great length to define what a program is and which entities should have outcomes-based assessment plans and which shouldn’t. For purposes of this article, just select something that you need to evaluate that you believe contributes to student learning and development. It could be an entire leadership program, a two-week training program, a one-hour workshop, or a one-on-one consultation.
For purposes of illustrating these steps, I will elect to evaluate a peer training program in conflict resolution.
2) Second, consider why you are offering this
program.
To ask why you want to offer a program may sound very funny. However, many of us have inherited programs, activities, or ways of doing for which we have never had the opportunity to sit back and really question why the program exists. Often in student affairs, whenever there is a concern raised, we simply produce a program or offer another activity in response. Rather, than tossing some programming at the concern, this step is asking us to stop before we “do” and simply sit back and reflect on the why of what we intend to do.
In regards to our example, I want to offer a training program on conflict resolution because I want student leaders across the campus to be able to resolve conflicts before they arise. Thus, my goal of trying to reduce conflict among students is driving my desire to program something to influence changed behavior. However, I am not going to actually try to “measure” changed behavior. While my desire/my goal is to change behavior, I recognize that all I can really due is provide some students with the tools that I believe can change behavior if the students choose to use them.
The honest realization about why we want to present a program, activity, workshop or service helps us clarify organizational goals and brings clarity to our planning and the evaluation/assessment of our work. (Please note that within this paper, I will be using evaluation and assessment interchangeably.)
3) Third, determine who you are assessing and
your locus of control.
Determining who you will be evaluating within your program in order to determine whether end results have been met is of value as you draft your outcomes statements. Identifying who you will be evaluating helps you determine how realistic the scope of your programming and its evaluation is. In other words, while I may want to program for the entire student body and I desire for the entire student body to be able to engage in peaceful conflict resolution; having the entire student body as my initial audience may be out of my locus of control. Rather, I may want to focus the training program on an audience whose sphere of influence may eventually reach the entire student body. Yet, my training of students and the evaluation of the effectiveness of that training is first done with a smaller group.
In addition, it is wise of me to keep my data gathering in perspective. While I will desire to know whether these students actually were able to apply their training effectively, it may not be realistic for me to actually attempt to evaluate that. I just may not have the opportunity or I may not even know when and where they would apply what I taught them.
Back to our example, I have selected a training program on conflict resolution. The audience that I am assessing is the audience that will be attending the program. So, for whom am I designing this program? Since I believe that I can appeal to leaders of organizations across campus and that they may be just the folks who may choose to train their officers on conflict resolution, I am going to invite all leaders of the student organizations to my training session.
With regard to my locus of control however, I actually have no control in regards to who shows up to my training sessions. In addition, once they leave my training sessions, I have no way to evaluate whether they were able to apply what they learned in their setting, unless I follow up with them individually, or unless I have the opportunity to observe them during a conflict resolution setting. So, I will need to keep this in mind as I consider my intended outcomes for the program.
4)
Fourth, articulate intended outcomes for the program with regard to planning
the program.
In our example, there are 250 student organizations on my campus so that means, I will be inviting 250 student leaders to a training session on conflict resolution. Apart from the logistics of the day, I need to first determine what I can reasonably teach and expect these students to demonstrate that they have learned.
So, what do I know about conflict resolution? Well, for illustration purposes again only, let’s say that I have been trained in conflict resolution by Dr. Webne-Behrman. Webne-Behrman (2007) advises eight steps for conflict resolution and a specific training model. With his permission, I utilize his model and thus adapt his intended end results to suit the audience and logistic restrictions I have for being able to deliver this model at my institution. Adopting Webne-Behrman’s model for conflict resolution allows me to under gird my programming and evaluation with well –researched concepts. I save a great deal of time as I don’t have to re-invent the wheel. Typically, there are examples of how to do things and possibly how to evaluate them already published in literature.
From examining Webne-Behrman’s materials, I can craft my outcomes. So, after one - four hour workshop with 20 student leaders (obviously, I will need to offer multiple workshops if the demand is there); students will be able to:
2) define what conflict is
3) articulate at least three assumptions that underlie conflict
4) identify reasons that conflict may arise
5) explain the role of perception in conflict
6) articulate reasons that many people try to avoid dealing with conflict
7) identify Webne-Behrman’s eight steps for conflict resolution
Now, once I have articulated these outcomes, which I could have done in collaboration with a committee of student leaders, a committee of colleagues, or in consultation with faculty who teach conflict resolution theories, I will want to use the outcomes as a guide to inform the planning of the program that will intend to deliver these outcomes.
5)
Fifth, plan the program that will deliver the intended outcomes.
While we often teach outcomes-based assessment as a sequential process, you can quickly see that implementing the process is not sequential at all (Bresciani, et alia, 2004; Palomba and Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004). In just considering how to write outcomes, one needs to integrate the thinking of her outcomes and their relationship to the organizational goals, while thinking of the audience she intends to serve and how she plans to actually provide the opportunity for the outcomes to be met. Thus, while this article provides you with steps in which to write outcomes, you may find yourself going from step 3 to 4 to 5 and then back to step 3 or back to step 4 in order to clarify what it is you actually expect to see happen and how you plan to provide the opportunity to deliver the intended outcomes. This process becomes even more fluid as you begin to identify the means in which you will evaluate the outcome.
The intended outcomes serve as a guide to the planning of the program. Some professionals may have an already established program and then decide to evaluate it. If that is the case, obviously, you are starting at step 5 and moving to step 4 and possibly step 3. Don’t worry if that is the case; you must work with what you have, so start wherever it seems logical. The important piece is that you make sure that your outcomes align with the manner in which you are providing the opportunity for the outcomes to be realized.
If I am planning a program around the intended articulated outcomes, and I know who my audience is and I know that I have a window of 4 hours, I will make sure that I design activities that not only teach to the manner in which I expect students to learn, but I will build in ways in which I can determine whether the students have learned what I expected them to learn. In other words, I will plan the means to gather evidence of student learning (e.g., evaluation methods) as I plan the opportunities for the student to learn what I expect her to learn. If I plan the delivery or teaching of the program in an intentional way, I will most likely influence the learning of the students. After all, that is my intent - - I want the students to learn what I expect them to learn.
To illustrate briefly, I will take the following outcomes and outline how I will teach and evaluate the student learning. Remember that all of this information is based on Webne-Behrman’s (2007) work on conflict resolution. Because I am using his work, I do not have to create as many teaching and evaluation materials.
1) define what conflict is
a. I will teach this in a 20 minute lecture, which provide examples.
b. Working in ten groups of two, one student will explain to the other what conflict is while the other student evaluates how well her peer defines conflict with a criteria checklist that I will provide. I will collect the checklists after the workshop to determine how I can improve my 20 minute lecture.
2) articulate at least three assumptions that underlie conflict
a. Expanding on my lecture in 1.a., I will provide a list of common assumptions. In addition, I will provide two case study scenarios where I point out the assumptions that underlie conflict.
b. Working in five groups of four, students will identify at least three assumptions that underlie conflict in the same case study. One student will record the group’s responses. I will collect these prior to our group report out of our findings and our group discussion
3) identify reasons that conflict may arise
a. using what I discovered from the students’ learning in the group discussion, I will emphasize the reasons that conflict may arise and add any in lecture that didn’t naturally occur through conversation.
b. Working again in five groups of four, students will identify at least three assumptions that underlie conflict in a different case study. One student will record the group’s responses. I will collect these prior to our group report out of our findings and our group discussion
4) explain the role of perception in conflict
5) articulate reasons that many people try to avoid dealing with conflict
a. using a video, the role of perception in conflict will be explained as will the reasons that many people avoid dealing with conflict.
b. 4 students will be selected to role play a conflict scenario. After the role-play, we will discuss what the students observed as the role that perception played in the conflict role-playing scenario and the reasons that some of the students in the role-play chose to avoid dealing with the conflict. Following the class discussion, the students will be asked to write a reflective essay about a time where they experienced conflict, how their perception interfered with resolution, and they will describe reasons they may have avoided resolution of the conflict.
6) identify Webne-Behrman’s eight steps for conflict resolution
a. because I will be running out of time at this point, I will end with a brief lecture on Webne-Behrman’s eight steps for conflict resolution.
b. I will ask the students to return to the first case study we worked with as a class and ask them to work in groups of two to explain how they would apply Webne-Behrman’s eight steps for conflict resolution to that case. I will collect each group’s transcriber’s notes on their conclusion and class will be dismissed.
This plan may look very organized and it may appear as though I am not only done with articulating my outcomes and my plan to deliver those outcomes, but I also have identified the means in which to evaluate the outcomes. However, let’s do a quick reality check before we get too excited.
6)
Sixth, determine whether the intended outcomes are reasonable for what you have
planned and check back in with your purpose and goal
Let’s go all the way back to step two, why is it that I wanted to offer this program? Have I designed a plan and written outcomes that will allow for my purpose to be realized? While my purpose is still loftier than what I actually was able to deliver, I am choosing to feel good about what these students will take away from this one-four hour workshop. The reality is that these students may not be able to resolve conflict once they have completed their conflict resolution training; actually, the reality is that they most likely will not be able to do so. I need more time with them. However, what I am able to do with the time and resource limitations is begin to contribute to my overall goal.
In many instances, professionals set themselves up for failure in assessment because they do not check in to see if their outcomes align with their goals in a manner where they really can deliver their outcomes (Bresciani, 2006). What I mean is that many times, we stay tied to our goals; the goals that inspire us to do the work we do and when we actually look very realistically at what we are able to accomplish given the access that we have to students and the time that we have with them, we are not able to gather data that we are achieving our goals unless we break our goals down further into intended outcomes.
Then we need to make sure that our intended outcomes are not just manifestations of our desires but that they are manifestations of our desires grounded in a plan that intentionally will deliver the outcomes. Back to our example, while I still want all the student leaders to learn about and then take responsibility for resolving conflict in their organizations, all I can really do in four hours is teach them a few things about conflict resolution. Now, if my institution shares my values, then I can enter into a dialogue about what it would take to have more learning outcomes realized that may bring us even closer to our now shared university goal of student leaders learning about and taking responsibility for resolving conflict in their organizations.
If you have ever heard outcomes-based assessment facilitators encourage you to use active verbs in the writing of your outcome-based assessment statements, it is to help you become more realistic about what you actually expect students to be able to know and do given the way in which you are providing the opportunity for the students to learn them. Active verbs also provide you with a hint on how you can evaluate the outcome.
A very helpful URL for identifying active verbs that associate with levels of learning, based on Bloom’s Taxonomy (1993) can be found at http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/program/hndouts/bloom.html The information in this URL can provide you with active verbs that more closely align with your learning expectations for students. For example, if you expect students to be able to explain the consequences of their decisions; the verb “to explain” is, according to Bloom (1993), a higher level of learning. We don’t typically expect students, particularly first-year, first-time students, to be able to demonstrate such high levels of learning after a one-hour workshop (Mentkowski and Associates, 2000). This level of learning requires more time. So, for many student affairs/services professionals, they become frustrated because what they desire for the student to learn doesn’t necessarily match with their capacity to deliver what they expect (Bresciani, 2006).
For example, I often work with student affairs/services professionals who want their students to be able to express their personal self-efficacy. This is a great goal and often, this goal aligns with institutional goals for student responsibility, persistence, graduation rates, civic responsibility, etc. So, the goal and the outcome are valuable and they are meaningful. However, when I ask the professionals how they provide the students with an opportunity to realize the intended outcome of “expressing personal self-efficacy”, the answer is, “well, we meet with individual students one-on-one.” “How often?,” I ask. “Well, whenever the student comes into see us. Sometimes we only see a student once a year”, they reply. “hmmm…” I respond and then proceed to explain.
The purpose of articulating intended learning outcomes is so that we have a framework on which to plan the opportunities for students to learn what we expect them to learn. If we do not provide students with facilitated opportunities to learn what we expect them to learn, than we can expect to see no learning (Mentkowski and Associates, 2000). It really is as simple as that. However, if believe that our one-on-one meetings with whomever it is who walks in our doors are contributing to students’ development of self-efficacy, why not systematize it a bit and see just how?
Back to the example of expecting students to be able to express their personal self-efficacy, why not tweak that outcome a bit to fit better into your locus of control? Re-phrase it to something such as, “students will be able to define what self-efficacy is.” This is teachable in a one-on-one session and it is measurable. In order to evaluate this outcome, you can simply ask the student to write out what self-efficacy is in their own words. Or, if you wanted to take it a step farther, you may ask them to provide you with a quick paragraph description of what self-efficacy would look to the student if she was trying to illustrate the meaning of the definition in an example.
Re-framing the outcome to better fit your actual method of delivery allows you to discover how you are specifically contributing to that student’s ability to achieve your greater goal. While re-framing the outcomes in this manner may be humbling for some because they feel that you are demeaning what they know to be true about the value of their work by trying to ”measure” it; for others, it will be incredibly powerful as they become better equipped to argue for the re-design and collaborative delivery of programs in order to move their students closer to their goals.
There is More to It
While this article is actually designed to only discuss the writing of outcomes, I would feel incredibly irresponsible if I didn’t point out the fact that writing outcomes is only a part of the responsible practice of outcomes-based assessment. There is more, of course. There is the evaluation of the outcomes in order to inform decisions about how to improve what you are intending to achieve. Articulating outcomes is only one small part of the process. Again, there are many resources that will guide readers to learning more about the process overall and thus, those resources should be investigated (Allen, 2004; Banta & Associates, 2002; Bresciani, 2006; Bresciani, Zelna, and Anderson, 2004; Maki, 2004; Mentkowski & Associates, 2000; Palomba & Banta, 1999; Suskie, 2004; Upcraft & Schuh, 1996).
Final Tips and
Reminders
n You do not have to assess everything you do every year.
n You don’t have to assess everything at once. Start with 1 or 2 learning outcomes each year and build on your work as you develop “habits” of self-reflection.
n Borrow examples from other institutions and from literature to modify as appropriate.
n Time to engage in outcomes-based assessment must be re-allocated. We allocate time according to what we value or what we are told to value.
n
Make sure that your outcomes align with the
manner in which you are providing the opportunity for the outcomes to be
realized. In other words, align planning
of the program with the intended outcomes.
n
Be realistic about what you can actually expect
students to be able to know and do in the time that you have allocated for them
to learn it.
n
Utilize active verbs in the drafting of your
outcomes.
n
Try to build in the means to evaluate the
learning while you are providing students with the opportunity to learn what
you expect them to learn.
n
Stay within your locus of control of
influence. Don’t try to evaluate
students or learning that is not within your means to make decisions or
recommendations.
References
Allen, M. J.
(2003). Assessing academic programs in higher education.
Bloom, B.S. (1993). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Retrieved on June 1, 2007 from http://www.coun.uvic.ca/learn/program/hndouts/bloom.html
Bresciani, M.
J. (2006). Outcomes-based academic and
co-curricular program review: A compilation of institutional good practices.
Bresciani, M.
J., Zelna, C. L., & Anderson, J. A. (2004).
Techniques for assessing student learning and development: A handbook
for practitioners.
Covey, S.R.(1989).
The seven habits of highly effective
people.
Freeman, J.P., Bresciani, M.J.,
& Bresciani, D.L. (February 10, 2004). Integrated
strategic planning: Bringing planning and assessment together. Retrieved June 1, 2007 from http://www.naspa.org/membership/mem/nr/article.cfm?id=1327.
Huba, M. E. & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered
assessment on college campuses / Shifting the focus from teaching to learning.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt
(2005a). Student success in college:
Creating conditions that matter.
Kuh, G.,
Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt (2005b). Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness.
Maki, P. (2004). Assessing for student learning: Building a
sustainable commitment across the institution. Stylus Publishing, LLC:
Manning, K.,
Kinzie, J., and Schuh, J.H. (2006). One
Size Does Not Fit All: Traditional and Innovative Models in Student Affairs
Practice.
Mentkowski, M., & Associates.
(2000). Learning that lasts: Integrating
learning, development, and performance in college and beyond.
NASPA & ACPA (2004). Learning
Reconsidered: A Campus-Wide Focus on the Student Experience.
Palomba, C. A.
& Banta, T. W. (1999). Assessment
essentials: Planning, implementing, and
improving assessment in higher education.
Strayhorn, T.
L. (2006). Frameworks for assessing learning and
development outcomes.
Suskie, L.
(2004). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide.
Upcraft, M.
L., & Schuh, J. H. (1996). Assessment in student affairs: A guide for
practitioners.
Webne-Behrman, H. (2007). Eight steps for conflict resolution. Retrieved on June 1, 2007 from http://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/onlinetraining/resolution/index.asp
Weber State University Ogden, Utah 84408 |