Assessment measures showing institutional effectiveness in relation to External Stakeholder Expectations for Accountability

Community colleges face a growing demand from a wide range of stakeholders for more transparent accountability but struggle to select appropriate measures and to use them in effective ways. The multiple demands of various stakeholders, and the calls to respond to those demands in effective and appropriate ways, are leading to a confusing array of possible measures. A literature review that looked at accountability demands, stakeholder theory, organizational culture, and assessment measures led to the development of a conceptual model suggesting a process for institutional leaders to use to prioritize stakeholders and their needs. This process was then tested in a single-case study that used a survey, a review of key artifacts, and a comparison of assessment measures used at the institution to those recommended in the literature. The purpose of the study was to determine if institutional leaders could identify and prioritize key external stakeholders relevant to community college operations. Because the missions of individual community colleges are varied, the key stakeholders for each institution vary as well. Public community college leaders must define and acknowledge the key stakeholders relative to their colleges’ missions. Community college leaders should consider differentiating stakeholder needs as they try to identify stakeholders relevant to the operation of the institution. Among institutional leaders surveyed was a definite division of perceived assessment measures important to external stakeholders. By using organizational processes found in stakeholder theory, institutional leaders can manage stakeholder relationships. A strategic management grid and communication loop diagram were presented for community college leaders to use in the process to identify relevant stakeholders and their assessment needs. This researcher believes that stakeholders and their assessment needs can be classified into degrees of importance, based on criteria that are meaningful to the institution.ASSESSMENT MEASURES SHOWING INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS IN RELATION TO External Stakeholder Expectations for Accountability Mona Lynn Clites A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of University of Maryland University College in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Management James Tschechtelin, Ed.D. Charlene Nunley, Ph.D. January 10, 2014ii DEDICATION The process of completing a dissertation is a journey and no exciting journey is done alone. So many people have crossed my path in this journey and there are several that I want to mention specifically. First and foremost, this work would not be complete without the guidance and continued support and encouragement of Dr. Charlene Nunley and Dr. James Tschechtelin. Both are inspirational leaders, mentors and teachers and provided continual feedback and support. I cannot thank them enough. Other influential faculty who assisted me, and whom I admire, are Dr. Patricia Keir and Dr. Trudy Bers. All of these leaders are interested in the continued growth and success of community colleges and their dedication to the profession and to students is commendable. I also thank my UMUC Cohort Three classmates with whom I have tremendous respect and gratitude. They made the journey enjoyable and I am blessed to have a group of lifelong friends. I want to thank my many, many family, friends, and co-workers who stood by me, encouraged me, listened to me, and cheered me on every step of the way. They are proud of my accomplishment as much as I am and their words of encouragement along the way kept me going. Finally, I want to dedicate this to my daughters Rachel and Julia. I always want to inspire them to follow their dreams, reach their goals, and do things that bring them joy. This has not always been an easy journey, but they have truly encouraged me, been happy for me, and are the reason that I want to set a model for being a successful and contented person. iii ABSTRACT Community colleges face a growing demand from a wide range of stakeholders for more transparent accountability but struggle to select appropriate measures and to use them in effective ways. The multiple demands of various stakeholders, and the calls to respond to those demands in effective and appropriate ways, are leading to a confusing array of possible measures. A literature review that looked at accountability demands, stakeholder theory, organizational culture, and assessment measures led to the development of a conceptual model suggesting a process for institutional leaders to use to prioritize stakeholders and their needs. This process was then tested in a single-case study that used a survey, a review of key artifacts, and a comparison of assessment measures used at the institution to those recommended in the literature. The purpose of the study was to determine if institutional leaders could identify and prioritize key external stakeholders relevant to community college operations. Because the missions of individual community colleges are varied, the key stakeholders for each institution vary as well. Public community college leaders must define and acknowledge the key stakeholders relative to their colleges’ missions. Community college leaders should consider differentiating stakeholder needs as they try to identify stakeholders relevant to the operation of the institution. Among institutional leaders surveyed was a definite division of perceived assessment measures important to external stakeholders. By using organizational processes found in stakeholder theory, institutional leaders can manage stakeholder relationships. A strategic management grid and communication loop diagram were presented for community college leaders to use in the process to identify relevant stakeholders and their assessment needs. This researcher believes that stakeholders and iv their assessment needs can be classified into degrees of importance, based on criteria that are meaningful to the institution. Keywords: stakeholders, stakeholder theory, institutional effectiveness measures, accountability, accountability measures, community college v © Copyright by Mona L. Clites 2013 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................3 Statement of Purpose ...........................................................................................................4 Context ................................................................................................................................5 Theoretical Base...................................................................................................................9 Research Questions ............................................................................................................10 Definition of Terms............................................................................................................11 Significance.......................................................................................................................13 Organization of Dissertation ..............................................................................................14 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................15 Growing and Multiple Demands for Accountability Faced by Community Colleges.......16 Stakeholder Theory and Its Relevance in Addressing Accountability Demands ..............21 Institutional Accountability Used to Create a Culture of Evidence ...................................29 Assessment Measures ........................................................................................................30 CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUAL MODEL ................................................................42 Assumptions of the Model .................................................................................................42 Expectations About Increasing Levels of Accountability Are Not a Fad ..............42 Institutional Effectiveness Can Be Measured ........................................................43 Stakeholders Have Authentic Needs ......................................................................43 Conceptual Model ..............................................................................................................44 Element 1. Identify Stakeholders and Their Accountability Needs Using Stakeholder Analysis .............................................................................................46 Element 2. Analyze and Use Typical Useful Reporting Measures ........................57 Element 3. Leading an Organizational Culture......................................................60 Element 4. Communicate Effectiveness Transparently .........................................62 Summary ............................................................................................................................64 CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................66 Research Approach ............................................................................................................66 Expert Review Process ......................................................................................................68 Rationale for Use of a Single-Case Study Method ............................................................69 Sample Selection ................................................................................................................73 Research Instruments .........................................................................................................74 Limitations .........................................................................................................................76 Summary ............................................................................................................................77 CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................78 Expert Panel Review ..........................................................................................................78 Evaluation Question 1 ............................................................................................79 vii Evaluation Question 2 ............................................................................................79 Evaluation Question 3 ............................................................................................80 Evaluation Question 4 ............................................................................................80 Evaluation Question 5 ............................................................................................81 Evaluation Question 6 ............................................................................................81 Evaluation Question 7 ............................................................................................81 Evaluation Question 8 ............................................................................................82 Evaluation Question 9 ............................................................................................82 Expert Reviewer Comments Considered for Incorporation into the Research ......82 Findings from the Case Study ............................................................................................84 Survey of Institutional Leaders ..........................................................................................86 Survey Question 1 ..................................................................................................86 Survey Question 2 ..................................................................................................92 Survey Question 3 ..................................................................................................93 Review of Existing Key Artifacts ......................................................................................96 The Strategic Plan ..................................................................................................97 Self-Study Recommendations and Suggestions...................................................100 Annual Initiatives for Academic Years 2013, 2012, and 2011 ............................100 Facilities Master Plan (2011–2016) .....................................................................102 Comparison of Proposed Measures and Institution’s Required Reporting Measures ....102 Case Study Findings in Relation to Research Questions .................................................110 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................110 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................112 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................113 Discussion of the Case Study Findings in Relation to the Argument of this Research ..114 CHAPTER SIX: IMPLICATIONS AND NEED FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .............116 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................116 Research Question 1 ............................................................................................117 Research Question 2 ............................................................................................118 Research Question 3 ............................................................................................120 Implementation Guidance for Operationalizing the Proposed Conceptual Model ..........121 Step 1 ...................................................................................................................121 Step 2 ...................................................................................................................122 Step 3 ...................................................................................................................122 Step 4 ...................................................................................................................124 Implications for Management Practice for Community College Leaders .......................126 Implications for Management Research with Community College Application and Suggestions for Future Research .....................................................................................128 Summary ..........................................................................................................................129 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................130 APPENDIX A EVALUATION FORM ..........................................................................138 APPENDIX B GUIDELINES FOR UNDERTAKING CASE STUDY RESEARCH ...139 APPENDIX C SURVEY OF PERCEPTIONS OF EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS ...140 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Initiatives................................................................................................................18 2 Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques Relevant to Helping Organize Participation ...........................................................................................26 3 Community College State Performance Measures ................................................32 4 National Governors Association Recommended Outcome and Progress Metrics from the Complete to Compete Initiative ................................................35 5 American Association of Community Colleges, American Community College Trustees, and the College Board’s Proposed Voluntary Framework of Accountability System .......................................................................................37 6 Classifications of Stakeholders ..............................................................................53 7 Descriptions of Attributes and Salience .................................................................55 8 External Stakeholders and Their Interests .............................................................59 9 Average Responses From Evaluators ....................................................................79 10 Proportion of Respondents by Classification .........................................................86 11 Ratings of External Stakeholder Groups by Attribute of Stakeholder Influence ................................................................................................................88 12 Ratings of External Stakeholder Groups by Attribute of Stakeholder Influence by Respondent Subgroup .......................................................................90 13 Additional External Stakeholders Suggested by Respondents ..............................93 14 Data Measures of Importance to External Stakeholders ........................................94 15 Combined Average Importance of Assessment Data Measures ............................96 16 Comparison of External Proposed Measures to Allegany College of Maryland ..............................................................................................................104 17 Potential Data Measures in Comparison With ACM Sources .............................109 18 Strategic Management Grid–External Stakeholders for Allegany College of Maryland ..............................................................................................................124ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Conceptual Model ..................................................................................................45 2 Freeman’s Strategic Management Concepts ..........................................................49 3 Qualitative Classes of Stakeholders .......................................................................52 4 Neville, Bell, and Whitwell’s Proposed Model of Stakeholder Attributes and Salience ..................................................................................................................54 5 Graphical Representation of External Stakeholders at Allegany College of Maryland ..............................................................................................................123 6 Communication Loop Model ...............................................................................1251 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION This chapter contains an introduction to the topic, the problem, and the purpose of the research. Management theoretical base is discussed and research questions are introduced. Finally, definitions of terms and the significance of this research, as well as discussion of how this dissertation is organized, are presented. In a report about public accountability in education, the Business-Higher Education Forum (2010) noted, Most of the attention to accountability in higher education is institutionally defined and is designed to measure learning as a tool for institutional improvement. Much of the information is not translated to the public, and lacks context from comparative data about other institutions or from national measures of expected outcomes. Public accountability cannot be achieved when the learning assessment system is so self-referential. (p. 22) Members of the Business-Higher Education Forum (2010) include 500 business and education leaders who look for solutions to the challenges the U.S. education system and the nation’s workforce have. In 2004, the Forum developed a position paper to discuss public accountability and how student learning is used as an accountability measure. They defined assessment as “an analytical tool for evaluating performance” (measurement) and accountability (transparency) as “the public presentation and communication of evidence about performance in relation to goals” (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004, p. 9). Higher education leaders promote institutional effectiveness by developing and using accountability systems that include assessment measures they feel reflect what stakeholders want. To be a truly accountable system, though, the position paper suggested that higher education leaders must use performance 2 assessment in accordance with publicly defined goals, which are then communicated in ways the public can understand (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004). The Business-Higher Education Forum further suggested that student learning is just one measure of accountability and others include, but are not limited to, “resource use, research and service, and contributions to economic development” (p. 9). American employers, who report shortages of skilled employees, have an interest in hiring employees with skills that include “leadership, teamwork, problem solving, analytical, critical thinking, communication, and writing skills…skills to succeed in a global, multicultural environment…proficient at multitasking and able to upgrade…skills continuously” (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004, p. 11). According to McClenney (2009), Accreditors, state, and federal governments, employers, and taxpayer(s)…are pressing higher education institutions to assess, report, and improve their performance, particularly with regard to student outcomes. As community colleges increasingly are recognized as a critical resource for addre

Team 5: Sequential Screening for Organizational Performance

from Scythe : Proceedings and Bulletin of the International Data Farming Community, Issue 6 Workshop 18Fractional Factorial Controlled Sequential Bifurcation (FFCSB) is a newly proposed two-phase screening procedure for large-scale simulation experiments. Sequential screening algorithms inform the decision maker of critical factors in their simulation models and optimize the use of computation resources in studying only critical factors. At IDFW15, FFCSB is applied to the Hierarchy organizational model, which serves as a benchmark to compare innovative Command and Control (C2) structures for enabling more effective warfare. The model is developed in Projects, Organizations and Work for Edge Research, which crystallizes two decades of collaborative research between the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) and Stanford Universit

Combat Identification and Fratricide: A Human Affair

Over the past two years TNO and Dstl developed an Agent Based Combat ID Model to support the research on factors influencing the success and failure of Combat Identification processes. During the International Data farming Workshop (IDFW) 15 in Singapore, we evaluated this model by conducting the first data farming experiments. The model represents Situation Awareness (SA) and the cognitive processes to combine new sensor input with SA in order to make identification decisions. A description of the model and the results of the Singapore experiments can be found in [ref 1]. A more general treatment about an architecture for placing the human at the centre of a constructive simulation, which also contains a more extensive description of this agent based Combat ID model, can be found in the ICCRTS 2008 paper [ref 2] This paper describes the progress we made with the model development since IDFW 15 and the results from the data farming experiments we conducted during IDFW 16 in Monterey. In a few paragraphs an overview will be given of the new features, the objectives, the design of the experiments and the results. We will conclude this paper with lessons learned, conclusions and future developments

A standard representation of imperative language programs for data collection and software measures specification

Numerous research results in the areas of software measures and software tools are predicated on a particular programming language, or on some characterizations of a programming language. For example, numerous software measures have been de ned only for structured programming languages and several of the reported approaches to program testing de ne a speci c language. However, this proliferation of languages upon which measures and tools are de ned makes independent evaluation and comparison of measures and tools problematic. We propose a standard representation of imperative language programs which is independent of the syntax of any particular programming language, yet the standard representation supports the de nition of a wide range of tools and measures. Additionally, the standard representation will allow for the masking of actual program semantics. Thus the standard representation provides a vehicle by which large volumes of industrial software might be made available to researchers while protecting the proprietary nature of the programs. 1 Dr. Baker is currently a Shell Faculty Fellow, supported in part by the Shell Companies Foundation,

The Ewing Amputation: The First Human Implementation of the Agonist-Antagonist Myoneural Interface

Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. Background: The agonist-antagonist myoneural interface (AMI) comprises a surgical construct and neural control architecture designed to serve as a bidirectional interface, capable of reflecting proprioceptive sensation of prosthetic joint position, speed, and torque from and advanced limb prosthesis onto the central nervous system. The AMI surgical procedure has previously been vetted in animal models; we here present the surgical results of its translation to human subjects. Methods: Modified unilateral below knee amputations were performed in the elective setting in 3 human subjects between July 2016 and April 2017. AMIs were constructed in each subject to control and interpret proprioception from the bionic ankle and subtalar joints. Intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative residual-limb outcome measures were recorded and analyzed, including electromyographic and radiographic imaging of AMI musculature. Results: Mean subject age was 38 ± 13 years, and mean body mass index was 29.5 ± 5.5 kg/m 2 . Mean operative time was 346 ± 87 minutes, including 120 minutes of tourniquet time per subject. Complications were minor and included transient cellulitis and one instance of delayed wound healing. All subjects demonstrated mild limb hypertrophy postoperatively, and intact construct excursion with volitional muscle activation. All patients reported a high degree of phantom limb position perception with no reports of phantom pain. Conclusions: The AMI offers the possibility of improved prosthetic control and restoration of muscle-tendon proprioception. Initial results in this first cohort of human patients are promising and provide evidence as to the potential role of AMIs in the care of patients requiring below knee amputation

An Ankle-Foot Prosthesis for Rock Climbing Augmentation

This research presents the design and preliminary evaluation of an electromyographically (EMG) controlled 2-degree-of-freedom (DOF) ankle-foot prosthesis designed to enhance rock climbing ability in persons with transtibial amputation. The prosthesis comprises motorized ankle and subtalar joints, and is capable of emulating some key biomechanical behaviors exhibited by the ankle-foot complex during rock climbing maneuvers. The free space motion of the device is volitionally controlled via input from EMG surface electrodes embedded in a custom silicone liner worn on the residual limb. The device range of motion is 0.29 radians of each dorsiflexion and plantar flexion, and 0.39 radians each of inversion and eversion. Preliminary evaluation of the device was conducted, validating the system mass of 1292 grams, build height of 250 mm, joint velocity of 2.18 radians/second, settling time of 120 milliseconds, and steady state error of 0.008 radians. Clinical evaluation of the device was performed during a preliminary study with one subject with transtibial amputation. Joint angles of the ankle-foot, knee, and hip were measured during rock climbing with the robotic prosthesis and with a traditional passive prosthesis. We found that the robotic prosthesis increases the range of achieved ankle and subtalar positions compared to a standard passive prosthesis. In addition, maximum knee flexion and hip flexion angles are decreased while climbing with the robotic prosthesis. These results suggest that a lightweight, actuated, 2-DOF EMG-controlled robotic ankle-foot prosthesis can improve ankle and subtalar range of motion and climbing biomechanical function

The Ewing Amputation: The First Human Implementation of the Agonist-Antagonist Myoneural Interface

Background:. The agonist-antagonist myoneural interface (AMI) comprises a surgical construct and neural control architecture designed to serve as a bidirectional interface, capable of reflecting proprioceptive sensation of prosthetic joint position, speed, and torque from and advanced limb prosthesis onto the central nervous system. The AMI surgical procedure has previously been vetted in animal models; we here present the surgical results of its translation to human subjects. Methods:. Modified unilateral below knee amputations were performed in the elective setting in 3 human subjects between July 2016 and April 2017. AMIs were constructed in each subject to control and interpret proprioception from the bionic ankle and subtalar joints. Intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative residual-limb outcome measures were recorded and analyzed, including electromyographic and radiographic imaging of AMI musculature. Results:. Mean subject age was 38 ± 13 years, and mean body mass index was 29.5 ± 5.5 kg/m2. Mean operative time was 346 ± 87 minutes, including 120 minutes of tourniquet time per subject. Complications were minor and included transient cellulitis and one instance of delayed wound healing. All subjects demonstrated mild limb hypertrophy postoperatively, and intact construct excursion with volitional muscle activation. All patients reported a high degree of phantom limb position perception with no reports of phantom pain. Conclusions:. The AMI offers the possibility of improved prosthetic control and restoration of muscle-tendon proprioception. Initial results in this first cohort of human patients are promising and provide evidence as to the potential role of AMIs in the care of patients requiring below knee amputation