Abstract:
A computerized method of using an assessment tool for an educational institution having a plurality of divisions, departments, and functional units that promotes assessment in higher education by improving effectiveness, quality, and efficiency in student services and activities. The assessment tool specifically targets student services by looking at how the following areas impact the organization: goal setting, goal accomplishment, satisfaction surveys, benchmarking, institutional quality, professional standards, and cost estimates. The assessment tool is to be carried out on a computer having a memory, processor and an intranet connection.

Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
       [0001]     1. Field of the Invention  
         [0002]     The present invention relates to a web-based based computerized assessment tool for an educational institution. The tool specifically targets student services by receiving data and generating reports to determine the impact on the following areas in the educational organization: goal setting, goal accomplishment, satisfaction surveys, benchmarking, institutional quality, professional standards, and cost estimates.  
         [0003]     2. Description of the Related Art  
         [0004]     Current trends in higher education suggest increased pressures on campus decision makers to reduce or control costs and improve the overall effectiveness and quality of student services. Within this context, decision makers will increasingly ask for evidence that particular services and activities contribute to the overall success of the institution, and that they support specific institutional goals.  
         [0005]     To this end, the present invention is a comprehensive web-based intranet technology system for assessment purposes in higher education. Presently, few if any assessment tools exist nationwide to assess student services and activities. At best, there is existing technology to survey student services and activities in departments. These functional services areas can be found in The Book of Professional Standards for Higher Education written by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS).  
         [0006]     The primary purpose of the tool is to promote assessment in higher education by improving effectiveness, quality, and efficiency in student services and activities. The tool specifically targets student services by looking at how the following areas impact the organization: goal setting, goal accomplishment, satisfaction surveys, benchmarking, institutional quality, professional standards, and cost estimates.  
         [0007]     By the tool documenting graphically and textually the ongoing and yearly results of all these areas, proper evaluation and planning can take place for the next fiscal year.  
         [0008]     Planning for future budgets and enhancements of student services and activities in higher education cannot proceed successfully without proper knowledge. Therefore, the tool described herein makes a contribution to assessment of student services and activities in higher education.  
         [0009]     Thus, a computerized assessment tool solving the aforementioned problems is desired.  
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
       [0010]     The computerized assessment tool for an educational institution having a plurality of divisions, each of the plurality of divisions having a plurality of departments, and each of the plurality of departments having a plurality of functional units. The assessment tool is to be carried out on a computer having a memory, processor and an intranet connection.  
         [0011]     A goal setting function allows for inputting a plurality of goal categories defining key strategic areas of a department or a division within an educational institution, the selection of a goal category, inputting at least one goal for the selected goal category, and the inputting a performance indicator related to the input goal.  
         [0012]     A goal accomplishment function allows for selecting the previously input goal, inputting a level of completion for the goal, and inputting a level of achievement for the performance indicator related to the goal.  
         [0013]     A satisfaction survey function allows for selecting a functional unit within a department and creating a survey for at least one category of individuals served by the functional unit, receiving feedback data from the category of individuals in response to the survey, and the compiling the received feedback data into a composite survey.  
         [0014]     A benchmarking function allows for selecting another educational institution for comparison, inputting of a focus area that defines a specific service area of the other educational institution having previous quantifiable results, inputting the previous quantifiable results for the specific service area of the selected educational institution, and inputting the quantifiable results for the specific service area for the educational institution for a first period of time.  
         [0015]     An alternative benchmarking function allows for selecting of an association or professional organization, selecting of another educational institution having an equivalent association or professional organization for comparison, inputting a focus area defining a specific service area of the selected other educational institution having previous quantifiable results, inputting previous quantifiable results for the specific service area of the selected other educational institution, and the inputting of quantifiable results for the specific service area for the educational institution for a first period of time.  
         [0016]     A structure focused institutional quality function allows for generating a list of departmental quality functions selected from the group consisting of a committee, a standardized process and a planning process, prompting of a response to determine the existence of each of the departmental quality functions, and receiving a user response based on the step of prompting. Additionally, an improvement focused institutional quality function allows for inputting at least one department improvement, inputting a first qualitative result for the improvement for a first period of time, and inputting a second qualitative result for the improvement for a second later period of time. Finally, a results focused institutional quality function allows for inputting a functional area defining an area of service of the department, displaying the department improvement, the receiving input of a quantitative survey value for the department improvement from individuals within the functional area, stakeholders of the functional area, and individuals external to the functional area, and compiling the input quantitative survey values for a tabular display.  
         [0017]     A professional standards function allows for selecting predetermined professional standards, selecting a functional area of a department to rate according to the professional standards, inputting a quantitative rating for the functional area according to the professional standards, tabulating the input quantitative rating, and generating an output table based on the tabulated input quantitative ratings.  
         [0018]     A cost estimate function allows for selecting a functional area of a department, selecting at least one key valued activity of the functional area of the department, inputting estimated budget amounts for the key valued activity of educational and general expenditures (E &amp; G), auxiliary revenue, grant revenue, and activity and services revenue (A &amp; S), direct and indirect cost estimates, inputting a total number of students served by the key valued activity, calculating a total cost per student served value based on the sum of all estimated budget amounts divided by the total number of students served, and displaying of the calculated total cost per student served value in comparison with another educational institution&#39;s total cost per student served value with respect to the key valued activity.  
         [0019]     These and other features of the present invention will become readily apparent upon further review of the following specification and drawings.  
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0020]      FIG. 1 . 0  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for the goal setting feature of the present invention.  
         [0021]      FIG. 1 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a first goal of the goal setting feature of the present invention.  
         [0022]      FIG. 1 . 1 A is a representation of a web-based interface screen for adding a goal within the goal setting feature of the present invention.  
         [0023]      FIG. 1 . 1 B is a representation of a web-based interface screen for editing a goal within the goal setting feature of the present invention.  
         [0024]      FIG. 2 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a department goal section of a goal accomplishment feature of the present invention.  
         [0025]      FIG. 2 . 1 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a first department goal of a goal accomplishment feature of the present invention.  
         [0026]      FIG. 2 . 2  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a division goal section of a goal accomplishment feature of the present invention.  
         [0027]      FIG. 3 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a learning community section of a satisfaction survey feature of the present invention.  
         [0028]      FIG. 3 . 1 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a statistical survey output section of a satisfaction survey feature of the present invention.  
         [0029]      FIG. 4 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for an institutional section of a benchmarking feature of the present invention.  
         [0030]      FIG. 4 . 2  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for an association or professional membership section of a benchmarking feature of the present invention.  
         [0031]      FIG. 5 . 0  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for an institutional quality feature of the present invention.  
         [0032]      FIG. 5 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a quality of structure section in an institutional quality feature of the present invention.  
         [0033]      FIG. 5 . 2  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a quality of improvements section in an institutional quality feature of the present invention.  
         [0034]      FIG. 5 . 3  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a quality of results section in an institutional quality feature of the present invention.  
         [0035]      FIG. 6 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a professional standards feature of the present invention.  
         [0036]      FIG. 6 . 2  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for an input screen for one area of a professional standards feature of the present invention.  
         [0037]      FIG. 6 . 3  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for an output screen one professional standards display matrix of the present invention.  
         [0038]      FIG. 7 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a cost estimate feature of the present invention.  
         [0039]      FIG. 7 . 2  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a outputting a cost per student value for a cost estimate feature of the present invention.  
         [0040]      FIG. 8 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a first category in a quantitative goals section of an outcome feature of the present invention.  
         [0041]      FIG. 8 . 1 . 1  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a first category in a qualitative goals section of an outcome feature of the present invention.  
         [0042]      FIG. 8 . 2  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a second category in a quantitative survey section of an outcome feature of the present invention.  
         [0043]      FIG. 8 . 3  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a third category in a quantitative benchmarking section of an outcome feature of the present invention.  
         [0044]      FIG. 8 . 4  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a fourth category in a quantitative institutional quality section of an outcome feature of the present invention.  
         [0045]      FIG. 8 . 5  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a fifth category in a quantitative professional standards section of an outcome feature of the present invention.  
         [0046]      FIG. 8 . 6  is a representation of a web-based interface screen for a sixth category in a quantitative cost estimates section of an outcome feature of the present invention. 
     
    
       [0047]     Similar reference characters denote corresponding features consistently throughout the attached drawings.  
       DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT  
       [0048]     The present invention is directed toward a web-based interface assessment tool for an educational institution. Educational assessment is the process of gathering and interpreting information related to students&#39; achievement of learning objectives at various stages through their academic career. Assessment is not a single action but an ongoing process that ideally involves both information-gathering and use of that information as feedback to modify and improve student learning.  
         [0049]     At a course level, assessment examines the degree to which the objectives for a specific course are evidenced in student learning. Faculty engage in course assessment by evaluating student performance on assignments, projects, and exams and then fine-tuning their approach in the course to achieve a better outcome. At the institution level, to which this invention is directed, assessment seeks to determine the degree to which broad institutional objectives are being met. The present invention focuses on assessment of an educational institution comprising educational divisions within an institution, departments within those divisions and further functional units within each of those departments.  
         [0050]     The following headings are divided into two main categories: assessment data collecting categories and an outcome category. The assessment data collecting categories allow for the input and collection of all assessment data. These categories are Goal Setting, Goal Accomplishments, Satisfaction Survey, Benchmarking, Institutional Quality, Professional Standards and Cost Estimates. Each of these categories may have the capacity to process and output or display the data that is input or collected. The outcome category pulls all the data from the data collecting categories and displays quantitative and qualitative presentations of that data for analysis by the educational institution.  
       I. Goal Setting  
       [0051]      FIG. 1 . 0  shows a representative example of a goal setting input screen  2 . The upper right hand corner of the input screen  2  displays the educational department designation  4  selected to receive input in this assessment process. In this instance, the representative department is “Title V”. Beneath the department designation  4  is a list of submenus  6  for use during the assessment process. The active submenu for  FIG. 1 . 0  is the “Goal Setting” submenu. At the bottom of the input screen  2 , are a number of goal categories  8 , or key strategic areas of an educational institution. Reference number  10  illustrates a single exemplary goal category of “Recruitment/Retention”.  
         [0052]      FIG. 1 . 1  shows a representative example of a goal setting and viewing screen  12  after a user has selected a goal category from  FIG. 1 . 0 . In this example, a user has selected the “Recruitment/Retention” goal category  14 . On this input screen, goals can be added via the selection of the “Add” selection button  16 , or edited via a selection of the “Edit” selection button  18 . Reference number  20  illustrates a previously input goal, and reference number  22  illustrates a number of previously input performance indicators associated with the goal  20 . The goal setting input screen  12  is able to additionally display any and all additional goals  24  and performance indicators  26  associated with those goals.  
         [0053]      FIG. 1 . 1 A shows a representative example of a goal adding screen  28  after a user has selected the “Add” selection button  16  as shown in  FIG. 1 . 1 . The general goal category  30  is displayed at the top of the goal adding screen  28  in addition to a goal input area  32  and a performance indicator (PI) input area  34 .  
         [0054]      FIG. 1 . 1 B shows a representative example of a goal editing screen  36  after a user has selected the “Edit” selection button  18  as shown in  FIG. 1 . 1 . The general goal category  38  is displayed at the top of the goal editing screen  36  in addition to a goal editing area  40  and a performance indicator editing area  42 .  
         [0055]     From each of the above goal input and editing screens, a user may input goals and performance indicators into the assessment tool for storage in the assessment tool memory and for later review, editing or processing.  
       II. Goal Accomplishment  
       [0056]      FIG. 2 . 1  shows a representative example of the goal accomplishment screen  42  selected by a user choosing the “Goal Accomplishments” selection button under submenu  6  of  FIG. 1 . 0 . Goal accomplishment screen  42  may be divided into two a general submenus based on the origination and focus of the goals, for example, department goals  44  and division goals  46 . In this example, department goals  44  has been selected such that a user may review the previously input goals and evaluate their progress. A general goal category of “Recruitment/Retention”  48  lists a first  50  goal and a level of completion rating input section  52  whereby a user may rate of progress of the goal as being “Completed”, “In Progress”, or, “Not Completed”. Each successive goal  54  has its own level of completion rating input section  56  designed for a user&#39;s input. Subsequent general goal categories  58 ,  60 ,  62  and  64  illustrate the display of multiple goals and corresponding level of completion rating input sections.  
         [0057]      FIG. 2 . 1 . 1  shows a representative example of a goal accomplishment screen  66  that additionally allows all performance indicators to be viewed. The general submenu “Department Goals”  68  is selected to show an emerging theme of “Recruitment/Retention”  70  having a first goal  72  and a level of completion input section  74 , as previously described above. A performance indicator  76  additionally has a level of achievement input section  78 , whereby a user may select “Achieved”, “In Progress”, or “Not Achieved” to designate a level of achievement of any performance indicator. A text input section  80  may additionally accommodate description from a user with respect to each performance indicator achievement or goal completion. Additional performance indicators  82 , level of achievement input selection  84  and text input section  86  may accompany multiple performance indicators for a specific goal  72 .  
         [0058]      FIG. 2 . 2  shows a representative example of a goal accomplishment screen  88  for the general submenu of “Division Goals”  90 . Here, a division general goal category  92  is displayed with a department goal  94  and its accompanying performance indicators  96 . Multiple division goals categories  98  are displayed such that a user may select any category and its related department goals and performance indicators to record levels of completion and levels of achievement.  
       III. Satisfaction Survey  
       [0059]      FIG. 3 . 1  shows a representative example of a satisfaction survey  100  selected from a group of functional areas  102  of a department of an educational institution. In this example, the user has selected the functional unit of “Learning Community”  104 . The survey has been designed by a department to receive feedback data from those who benefit and are served by the department&#39;s services. A first series of questions  106  are directed to receiving personal data from the survey taker and a second series of questions  108  are directed to receiving educationally related survey data. A survey taker may respond to the satisfaction survey in any number of ways. For example, a pre-selected pull-down response menu  110 , checkboxes  112 , or text input from a user  114 .  
         [0060]      FIG. 3 . 1 . 1  shows a representative example of a composite satisfaction survey  116  compiled from data received from user&#39;s feedback to the satisfaction survey  100 . Specific questions  118 ,  120 ,  122  from the satisfaction survey may be displayed with a statistical presentation of the responses received for each specific question or category. Additionally, the educational institution may use demographic data collected from the survey for display.  
       IV. Benchmarking  
       [0061]      FIG. 4 . 1  shows a representative example of an institutional benchmarking input screen  124 . The benchmarking section may be divided into submenus based on the type of benchmarking the educational institution department finds most suitable for comparison. A first example is establishing benchmarking criteria against another educational institution  126 , and a second example is to establish benchmarking criteria against associations or professional membership organizations  128  of another institution. An educational institution is selected for comparison with the educational institution performing the assessment. In this example, Arizona State University  130  is selected and source data for the comparison  132  input. A focus area  134  that defines a specific service area having quantifiable result data is input into the assessment tool. A goal  136  is input and quantifiable results for a first period of time  138  are input and a data input field for inputting quantifiable results for a second and later period of time of  140  is provided. Additional educational institutions  142 ,  144 ,  146  are able to be input with focus areas and quantifiable data input for each.  
         [0062]      FIG. 4 . 2  shows a representative example of an association/professional organization benchmarking input screen  148 . In this example, an association or professional membership association  150  is selected for comparison with the educational institution performing the assessment. Here, a first association  152  is selected for comparison and a corresponding institution  154  having source data for the comparison. A focus area  156  that defines a specific service area having quantifiable result data is input into the assessment tool. A goal  158  is input and quantifiable results for a first period of time  160  are input and a data input field for inputting quantifiable results for a second and later period of time of  162  is provided. Additional associations or professional membership associations  164 ,  166  are able to be identified with respect to their institutions and focus areas, and quantifiable data is then input for each.  
       V. Institutional Quality  
       [0063]      FIG. 5 . 0  shows a representative example of an institutional quality menu screen  168  having three sections, a structure section  170 , an improvement section  172 , and a results section  174 . Each of these sections will be described herein below in further detail.  
         [0064]      FIG. 5 . 1  shows a representative example of a “Quality of Structure” survey menu  176 . A list of departmental quality functions  178 ,  180 ,  182 ,  184 ,  186  consisting of committees, standardize processes and planning processes prompt a user to respond in a “yes” or “no” fashion  188  as to the existence of these quality functions in the educational department being assessed. The purpose of this departmental quality functions survey is to inform the division managers of the existence or lack of these quality functions within an educational institution department.  
         [0065]      FIG. 5 . 2  shows a representative example of a “Quality of Improvements” screen  190 . Department improvements  192 ,  198 ,  200 ,  202 ,  204  are input of qualitative results for a first period in time  194  and a second period in time  196  are input for each department improvement.  
         [0066]      FIG. 5 . 3  shows a representative example of a “Quality of Results” screen  206 . On this screen, a functional area  208  is selected and identified. A first department service improvement  210  is identified and a quantitative survey prompts certain categories of users to input a quantitative value related to the service improvement. Quantitative values may be solicited responses from the department itself  212 , from stakeholders having a vested interest in the department  214 , and external sources doing business with the department  216 . Multiple service improvements  218 ,  220  in the same functional area may be displayed and the response data may be compiled for further analysis.  
       VI. Professional Standards  
       [0067]      FIG. 6 . 1  shows a representative example of a professional standards main menu screen  222 . A representative sample of professional standards  224  are listed for a user to select and begin to rate a department based on a number of criteria. The example used for professional standards comes from The Book of Professional Standards for Higher Education written by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). A user would, for example, select a professional standard  226  from the list of sample professional standards  224 .  
         [0068]      FIG. 6 . 2  shows a representative example of a professional standards menu screen  228  after the selection of a first professional standard  226 . A number of functional areas within a department  230  appear with respect to the first professional standard  226 . Each of these functional areas  230  have an input section allowing a user to rate each functional area with respect to a grading legend  232 . In this instance, for example, the grading scale is a numerical value from 0 to 4. After a user has rated the functional areas within the department  230 , the user may continue to select different professional standards to rate each of the functional areas of the department.  
         [0069]      FIG. 6 . 3  shows a representative example of a professional standards output table  234 . Reference number  236  identifies the functional area of the department that has performed the rating. Reference number  238  identifies each of the professional standards used in the rating process and the rated functional areas  240  display an average rating given for each professional standard.  
         [0070]     VII. Cost Estimates  
         [0071]      FIG. 7 . 1  shows a representative example of a cost estimate screen  242 . A user first selects a functional unit of a department of an educational institution from a list of functional units  244 . On the screen, the functional unit that is selected is displayed  246 . The user then inputs key valued activities  256  that are essential to the functional units previously selected. Next, the user inputs cost estimates values for educational and general expenditures (E &amp; G)  248 , auxiliary revenue  250 , grant revenue  252 , and activity and services revenue (A &amp; S)  254 . A user then inputs direct costs  258  and indirect costs  260  for the functional unit of the department. Finally, the user inputs the number of students served  262  by the functional unit of the department. A computer program then calculates a total cost per student served value based on a sum of all estimated budget amounts divided by the total number of students served  263 .  
         [0072]      FIG. 7 . 2  shows a representative example of a cost estimate display output screen  264  showing the computed total cost per student served value in comparison with other total cost per student served values of similar key valued activities of functional units of other educational institutions for which data has already been provided. In this case, the institution is represented on a graphical linear scale from low to high with the other educational institutions.  
         [0073]     VIII. Outcomes  
         [0074]     The outcomes portion of the invention collects all previously input data from the assessment data collecting categories and displays the data in either a quantitative and/or a qualitative output format.  
         [0075]      FIG. 8 . 1  shows a representative example of an outcomes screen for previously input department goals  266 . In this instance, a quantitative  268  portion of the outcomes section and department goals  270  has been selected. Merging themes  272 ,  274  may be selected by the user to display graphical data  276 . This graphical data is generated either automatically or manually by the data collected in the goal setting and goal accomplishments section of the present invention.  
         [0076]      FIG. 8 . 1 . 1  shows a representative example of an outcomes screen for previously input department goals  278  where a qualitative  280  portion of the outcomes section and department goals  270  has been selected. A text summary  282  may be input in the qualitative outcomes section to further identify or chronicle any pertinent information in the quantitative section. The quantitative and qualitative sections may be selected for each of the assessment data collecting categories.  
         [0077]      FIG. 8 . 2  shows a representative example of an outcomes screen for previously input satisfaction surveys  284 . After the user selects the quantitative  286  portion of the outcomes screen, and the satisfaction surveys  288  portion, a graphical representation of the tabulated data from the previously input satisfaction surveys are displayed. Each category of the satisfaction survey  290 ,  292 , as previously described above, may be graphically displayed showing a statistical representation of the responses received to the satisfaction surveys.  
         [0078]      FIG. 8 . 3  shows a representative example of an outcomes screen for previously input benchmarking data  294 . After the user selects the quantitative  296  portion of the outcomes screen, and the benchmarking  298  portion, graphical representations of the tabulated data from the previously input benchmarking surveys and merging theme  299  are displayed. In this example, the Institution/Association &amp; Professional Memberships  300  are identified in combination with the educational institution for comparison, the focus area of the benchmarking data, and the result data of the assessed institution in comparison with the other educational institution  302 ,  304 .  
         [0079]      FIG. 8 . 4  shows a representative example of an outcomes screen for previously input institutional quality data  306 . After the user selects the quantitative  308  portion of the outcomes screen, and the institutional quality (IQ)  310  portion, a graphical representation of the tabulated data from the previously input institutional quality surveys is displayed. In this example, the functional units  312  of the surveyed department are grouped as columns in a table, and these previously input service improvements  314  identified on the left-hand portion of the table for each functional unit.  
         [0080]      FIG. 8 . 5  shows a representative example of an outcomes screen for previously input professional standards data  316 . After the user selects the professional standards of  318  portion of the outcomes screen, the functional unit or department  320  is either selected or displayed. The professional standards  322 , as previously mentioned above, are identified and correlate to the functional units  324  of the department of the educational institution. Input data are displayed for each functional unit of the department with respect to each of the categories of the professional standards.  
         [0081]      FIG. 8 . 6  shows a representative example of outcomes screen for previously input cost estimate data  326 . After the user selects the quantitative  328  outcomes portion and the cost estimates  330  portion, the user either selects or has displayed a merging theme  332  as previously input. Each functional unit of the department  334 ,  336 ,  338  is displayed and a linear graph  340 ,  342 ,  344  is associated with each functional unit showing the assessed institution in relationship to at least one other educational institution on a total cost per student value basis.  
         [0082]     It is to be understood that the present invention is not limited to the embodiment described above, but encompasses any and all embodiments within the scope of the following claims.