Working Group 2 & 4 Critical Resources for Demonstrating Impact

Click to download a PDF version of the Working Groups 2 and 4 Critical Resources for Demonstrating Impact (Acrobat (PDF) 85kB Sep8 20).

Intended Audience

Higher education administrators, faculty involved in campus-based change efforts; change agents on a campus; directors of centers for teaching/STEM/etc.

Overview

Have you ever felt as if you were faced with an impossible decision regarding allocation of funding or resources? In higher education we are often called upon to improve educational outcomes with scarce institutional resources. We are asked to make difficult fiscal decisions without the tools we need to determine the possible fiscal and moral implications of supporting new initiatives and projects. If you have wondered whether it is possible to make modest changes that have a great impact, while also saving money and resources, the answer is yes.

The ASCN Costs, Benefits, and Demonstrating Impact Working Group created this resource list to share tools and examples that can help with evidence-based fiscal decision making. These resources demonstrate that it is possible to invest scarce institutional resources wisely to advance your priorities. They were gathered to address questions and issues you might be facing at your institution, such as:

  • Increasing learning outcomes for all students;
  • Adopting instructional practices to improve retention, increased enrollment, persistence, etc.;
  • Articulating and communicating the benefits of institutional change to potentially skeptical decision-makers both inside and outside the university;
  • Quantifying both the cost and return on investment of implementing instructional change during transitions and over the long-term;
  • Determining how to best implement institutional change into institutional budgeting, planning, and decision-making.
We think you will find the resources particularly helpful if you are working to address these kinds of questions:

  • What are some of the cost categories associated with implementing instructional change during transitions and long-term?
  • Have the costs of instructional change initiatives been documented and has the return on investment been measured?
  • Is there guidance about how to undertake such measurement at my institution?
  • Are there any strategies in place for embedding considerations of potential benefits and associated costs into institutional budgeting, planning, and decision-making? What are some of these strategies?
  • How can we make explicit increased learning outcomes for all students associated with instructional change?
  • Other than typical benefits like improved learning outcomes and more satisfying teaching experiences, what other kinds of benefits are envisioned from improving instructional practices at the department, college or university level (e.g., retention, increased enrollment, persistence, etc.)?
  • What are some ways of articulating and communicating various types of benefits to potentially skeptical decision-makers inside and outside the university?



Help

Results 1 - 10 of 22 matches

Competency-based education: A study of four new models and their implications for bending the higher education cost curve
Donna M. Desrochers; Richard L. Staisloff
In this report the authors assess CBE programs at four institutions by considering business models, costs, etc. and what is required from institutions to 'get to breakeven'. The four institutions anticipate breaking even with their programs by the fifth year, and they project that by the sixth year these programs will be operating at half the cost of the traditional academic programs. The article describes how an evaluation of the competency- based education business model must include considerations regarding price, efficiency (academic delivery structure, staff ratios, and compensation), and scale (student recruitment, enrollment, and retention).

Change Topics (Working Groups): Costs and Benefits
Resource Type: Report
Program Components: Professional Development:Curriculum Development, Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning, Professional Development:Course Evaluation

Whether and How Money Matters in K-12 Education
Margaret L. Plecki; Tino A. Castańeda
The authors review the research on the allocation of resources to support improvement of student learning in public K-12 education, including policies, methodological issues, and availability of data.

Change Topics (Working Groups): Costs and Benefits
Resource Type: Journal Article
Program Components: Outreach:Outreach to K12 Teachers and Students, Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning

Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math
Elli J. Theobald; Mariah J. Hill; Elisa Tran; Sweta Agrawal; E. Nicole Arroyo; Shawn Behling; Nyasha Chambwe; Dianne Laboy Cintrón; Jacob D. Cooper; Gideon Dunster; Jared A. Grummer; Kelly Hennessey; Jennifer Hsiao; Nicole Iranon; Leonard Jones II; Hannah Jordt; Marlowe Keller; Melissa E. Lacey; Caitlin E. Littlefield; Alexander Lowe; Shannon Newman; Vera Okolo; Savannah Olroyd; Brandon R. Peecook; Sarah B. Pickett; David L. Slager; Itzue W. Caviedes-Solis; Kathryn E. Stanchak; Vasudha Sundaravardan; Camila Valdebenito; Claire R. Williams; Kaitlin Zinsli; and Scott Freeman
This study is a comprehensive meta-analysis of research on the influence of active and traditional learning approaches on STEM course outcomes (exam scores and course failure rates) for underrepresented students. Time-intensive active learning experiences contributed to reduced achievement gaps in exam scores and pass rates. Researchers concluded that deliberate active-learning course designs and inclusive teaching contribute to increasing equity in STEM. Although this study does not discuss cost-benefits, it affirms the value of investing in pedagogical enhancements to increase student retention and success. In this case, the benefits are continuous tuition revenue through student retention and the moral imperative of reducing equity gaps.

Change Topics (Working Groups): Costs and Benefits
Resource Type: Journal Article
Program Components: Supporting Students:Student Engagement, Professional Development:Curriculum Development, Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning, Professional Development:Diversity/Inclusion

Instructional quality, student outcomes, and institutional finances
Jessie Brown; Martin Kurzweil
A report from the American Council on Education exploring the question of whether improving instructional quality can increase an institution's revenue. Principal Conclusions (p.22): As the cost of college grows and sources of funding of decline, college and university leaders face mounting pressure to find effective and efficient ways to improve their core business: educating and graduating students. Numerous studies show that research-based pedagogical practices and participation in faculty development can help institutions achieve these goals by increasing student learning, engagement, persistence, and degree completion. There is also evidence that improvements in retention increase revenue and have a positive return on investment. Other interventions—including remedial course redesign, increased course-taking in the first year, and more comprehensive first-year curricular and co-curricular reforms—have been shown to improve cost per degree.

Change Topics (Working Groups): Costs and Benefits, Policy
Target Audience: Institution Administration, Non-tenure Track Faculty, College/University Staff, Tenured/Tenure-track Faculty
Resource Type: Report
Program Components: Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning, Evaluating Teaching

Ranking ROI Of 4,500 US Colleges And Universities
Anthony P. Carnevale; Ban Cheah; Martin Van Der Werf
Principal findings: Community colleges and many certificate programs have the highest ROI in the short term. Colleges that primarily award bachelor's degrees have the highest ROI in the long term. Public colleges have higher ROI than private colleges in the short term. Degrees from private nonprofit colleges generally have a higher ROI in the long term than public universities.

Change Topics (Working Groups): Policy, Costs and Benefits
Target Audience: College/University Staff, Institution Administration
Resource Type: Report
Program Components: Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning

New York State Open Educational Resources Funds: CUNY Year Two Report
CUNY Report
As of Fall 2019, the growth of CUNY's OER programs, courses, and enrollments has skyrocketed as illustrated by the following numbers: 23,661 sections across CUNY have converted from expensive proprietary materials to open educational resources. IMPACT: 469,000 students have enrolled in courses with zero textbook cost. Students saved an estimated $46.9 million from Fall 2017 - Fall 2019. BENEFITS ANALYSIS: $5.86 in savings for every $1 of NYS Funding.

Change Topics (Working Groups): Costs and Benefits
Target Audience: Institution Administration, College/University Staff
Resource Type: Report
Program Components: Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning

Return on Investment Toolkit
EDUCAUSE; rpk Group
This toolkit provides videos, webinars, articles, infographics, tools, and case studies focused on applying anROI lens to innovation and investments to support student success.

Change Topics (Working Groups): Costs and Benefits
Target Audience: Institution Administration, College/University Staff, Non-tenure Track Faculty, Tenured/Tenure-track Faculty
Resource Type: Toolkit/workbook
Program Components: Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning

Investing in Success: Cost-Effective Strategies to Increase Student Success
Jane Wellman; and Rima Brusi

Change Topics (Working Groups): Costs and Benefits
Target Audience: Institution Administration
Resource Type: Report
Program Components: Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning

How UT-Austin's Bold Plan for Reinvention Went Belly Up
Lindsay Ellis
This article provides a cautionary tale about large institutional efforts to redesign undergraduate education and the challenges of measuring what works. In 2016, UT Austin pledged to revamp undergraduate education, adding state-of-the-art online classes, redesigned curricula, and short courses, among others, to produce less expensive degrees, teach practical skills and expand access via technology. Dubbed "Project 2021" it also committed to measure what worked and adjust accordingly. By 2019, the project was deemed too ambitious and lacked support to continue. Several lessons about the impact of changes in undergraduate teaching are useful. For example, implementing regular quizzes in large classes narrowed grade disparities between students from different socioeconomic groups. Massive online classes modeled after late-nighttalk shows were hailed as a national model for using technology to deliver remote instruction and billed as next-generation undergraduate programs. Yet, while students rated the online courses highly, evaluations of student learning showed no advantage to the course delivering mode, and the cost for the heavily produced studio quality courses was high. Key conclusions from the project evaluation is that it was very complicated and lacked direction, got caught in bureaucratic processes, and was expensive.

Change Topics (Working Groups): Costs and Benefits
Target Audience: College/University Staff, Non-tenure Track Faculty, Tenured/Tenure-track Faculty, Institution Administration
Resource Type: Report, Website
Program Components: Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning

Valuing Assessment: Cost-Benefit Considerations
Randy L. Swing; Christopher S. Coogan

Change Topics (Working Groups): Costs and Benefits
Target Audience: Institution Administration
Resource Type: Report
Program Components: Institutional Systems:Strategic Planning