Assessment in Higher Education and Student Affairs Graduate Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Courses focused on assessment within higher education have proliferated across Higher Education and Student Affairs (HESA) graduate programs, tied to an emphasis on using data and evidence in decision making in the field. The intended outcomes and curriculum of these courses vary widely between institutions, at times producing confusion over the competencies needed in student affairs assessment. This project evaluated syllabi from over 100 HESA graduate assessment and evaluation courses to develop a more robust understanding of the skill sets of entry-level student affairs practitioners entering the field from HESA graduate programs and the core outcomes and texts of student affairs assessment education. We describe student affairs as a field engaged in the process of professionalization (Perozzi & Shea, 2023, McGill et al., 2021) through the development of standardized knowledge and the ongoing integration of community-driven standards. Study findings illustrate that courses tended to focus on technical knowledge, such as data collection methods and analysis, over the political and contextual dimensions of assessment. Extant standards and competencies, as well as emerging topics and methods, were also incorporated inconsistently. Implications for faculty, practitioners, early career professionals, and professional associations are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".