Assessment practices of community-engaged institutions in the USA: Common claims and uncertain methods.
Saved in:
| Title: | Assessment practices of community-engaged institutions in the USA: Common claims and uncertain methods. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Holton, Valerie L.1 (AUTHOR), Hinterlong, James E.1 (AUTHOR) jhinterlong@gmail.com, Jettner, Jennifer2 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Research Evaluation. Oct2020, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p406-417. 12p. |
| Subjects: | Universities & colleges, ACT Assessment, Social classes, Social mobility, Human capital, Communities |
| Abstract: | Policymakers, accreditation bodies, students and their families, and other stakeholders increasingly press institutions of higher education to provide clear evidence of their value. Institutions emphasize their status as a public good claiming their role in developing human capital and informed citizens, enabling social class mobility, and fostering innovation. Proponents of community engagement (CE) weave together elements of these arguments into a perspective that encourages institutions to embrace mutually beneficial community–academic partnerships as key to all aspects of their missions. Proponents argue that through CE universities can strengthen their links to societal needs, maintain relevant content and curriculum, and ultimately communicate their value. This study involves 41 US institutions that have been recognized as community engaged through a national voluntary classification. To explore the state of the field, we critically examine their self-reported assessment methods, sources, frequency, and oversight. While most describe their CE initiatives and impacts in positive terms, few provide adequate detail about their findings or assessment practices to determine whether these claims are justified. Leaders in the field and across institutions should prioritize evaluating mutual benefit; coordinating assessment; enhancing assessment capacity; and acting on assessment. We conclude with implications for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Research Evaluation is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Policymakers, accreditation bodies, students and their families, and other stakeholders increasingly press institutions of higher education to provide clear evidence of their value. Institutions emphasize their status as a public good claiming their role in developing human capital and informed citizens, enabling social class mobility, and fostering innovation. Proponents of community engagement (CE) weave together elements of these arguments into a perspective that encourages institutions to embrace mutually beneficial community–academic partnerships as key to all aspects of their missions. Proponents argue that through CE universities can strengthen their links to societal needs, maintain relevant content and curriculum, and ultimately communicate their value. This study involves 41 US institutions that have been recognized as community engaged through a national voluntary classification. To explore the state of the field, we critically examine their self-reported assessment methods, sources, frequency, and oversight. While most describe their CE initiatives and impacts in positive terms, few provide adequate detail about their findings or assessment practices to determine whether these claims are justified. Leaders in the field and across institutions should prioritize evaluating mutual benefit; coordinating assessment; enhancing assessment capacity; and acting on assessment. We conclude with implications for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09582029 |
| DOI: | 10.1093/reseval/rvaa010 |
