1 / 36

MPI

MPI. Mission Perception Inventory. Assessing Institutional Effectiveness with the Mission Perception Inventory (MPI): Linking Mission Goals and Learning Environment. North Carolina State University

maylin
Télécharger la présentation

MPI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MPI Mission Perception Inventory Assessing Institutional Effectiveness with the Mission Perception Inventory (MPI): Linking Mission Goals and Learning Environment North Carolina State University Undergraduate Assessment SymposiumAligning Pedagogy, Curriculum & Assessment April 24-26, 2009 Ellen Boylan, Ph.D. and Sister Jane Wakahiu, LSOSF • Marywood University

  2. What’s in a mission?

  3. Purpose Develop an instrument to measure student perception of institutional mission. Test instrument reliability. Uncover constructs (factors). Observe constructs longitudinally. GRANTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR IMPROVED ASSESSMENT METHODS scope of research

  4. Purpose Develop an instrument Test instrument reliability. Uncover constructs. Observe constructs longitudinally. Research Questions 1.Is the Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) a valid and reliable reliable measure of student perception of institutional mission? 2.What are the factors in the MPI? 3.Do the factors recur in repeated administrations of the revised MPI? 4.Are the factors equally reliable over time? scope of research

  5. leaders ofpublic and privateinstitutionsalike are thinking about spirituality these days,as the data suggest that's what theirstudents are thinking about, too (Inside Higher Ed, 2009). • There is strong connection betweeninstitutional programs and student learning environment (Pascarella, 2001). • …institutions influencelevels of engagement on campus as a result ofstructural features, programs, policies, and organizational culture (Kuh et al., 2005). background

  6. GRANTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR IMPROVED ASSESSMENT METHODS design Select the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as the vehicle for inserting research questions. Assemble a NSSE consortium to jointly engage in research to explore student perception of mission. Develop question items; administer them to the consortium as a NSSE attachment. Test the questions: reliability, factor analysis, and correlation analysis. Repeat annually.

  7. …The University roots itself in the principle of justice and a belief that education empowers people…offers students a welcoming and supportive community that encourages men and women of all backgrounds to shape their lives as leaders in service to others. Proud of its liberal arts tradition and host of professional disciplines,… challenging students to broaden their understanding of global issues and to make decisions based on spiritual, ethical, and religious values… developing the question items… • Conduct a qualitative analysis of mission statements • Distill common constructs • Draft question items based on mission statement constructs • Vet with participating institutions, experts, prospective subjects Concepts common to mission statement of consortium colleges, like this one, were drawn out, compared, and distilled into 20 questions.

  8. GRANTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR IMPROVED ASSESSMENT METHODS Concepts become question items...

  9. A peek at the questionnaire See consortia questions by year: http://nsse.iub.edu/html/consortia-list_2009.cfm

  10. GRANTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR IMPROVED ASSESSMENT METHODS administration The NSSE survey with attached Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) questions has been administered 155 times to more than 44,198 first-year and senior students at 112 unique institutions across the United States every year since 2004.

  11. Is the Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) valid and reliable? Reliability analysis of the mission questions (20 items) is performed. Low-loading items kicked out. A Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) is produced (17 to 19 items).

  12. What are the factors (scales) in the Mission Perception Inventory? • Factor analysis • of MPI • is conducted each year. • By year, three or four subscales are produced: • Sense of mission. • Respect for diversity. • Individual values. • Religious practice/Spirituality.

  13. Sense Of Mission Administer Consortium mission questions (20 items) Mission Perception Inventory (MPI) (~19 items) Respect for Diversity Individual Values Spiritual Practice derivation of the MPI and subscales

  14. sense of mission (10 items  = .90) • Themissionof this institution is widely understood by students. • Social and personal development is an important part of the mission. • Ethical and spiritual development of students is important. • This institution offers opportunities for volunteering and community service. • This institution offers opportunities for developing leadershipskills. • There are opportunities for students to strengthen their religious commitment. • This institution’s religious heritageis evident. • Professors here discuss the ethical implications of what is being studied. • As a result of my experience here, I am more aware of my own personal values. • The mission of this institution is reflected in courseofferings.

  15. respect for diversity(5 items  = .878) The faculty, staff, and students here… respect different religions respect different races and cultures ……………………………………………………………………………… Students feel free to express individual spirituality. Different sexual orientations are accepted. The environment encourages appreciation of diversity.

  16. Consortia institutions and respondents by year

  17. Do the factors recur in repeated administrations of the revised Mission Perception Inventory (MPI)

  18. GRANTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR IMPROVED ASSESSMENT METHODS (MPI)Mission PerceptionInventory Report

  19. Are the factors equally reliable over time?

  20. GRANTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR IMPROVED ASSESSMENT METHODS Teagle Foundation Research Continues 2009… • Develop the Mission Engagement Index. • Obtain NSSE 2008 consortia data • Test using reliability analysis to produce factors • Distribute MPI reports • Compare consortia results • Conduct regression analysis to create the new index • Produce Mission Engagement Index (MEI) Reports for consortia institutions.

  21. Does the Mission Engagement Indexdescribe causal relationships among variables that affect mission perception? • Dependent variable (Institution score) • Mission Perception Inventory • Sense of Mission scale • Respect for Diversity scale • Independent variables (need 15 cases per)* • Selectivity 15 institutions • Enrollment 30 institutions • Urbanicity 45 institutions • Resident% 60 institutions • Female% 75 institutions • Another? 90 institutions *…a recommended ratio of subjects to IVs of at least 15 to 1 will provide a reliable regression equation (Stevens, 1992).

  22. Selecting IVs for regression analysis

  23. Is there sufficient variability? participating institutions by region 2008 = 2 consortia, 54 institutions

  24. Is there sufficient variability? “urbanicity” of participating institutions 2008

  25. considering elegance • Consistency of factors is affirmed. • Institution sizes reasonably varied. • Data sufficient to conduct analysis. • Variables, initially selected on an a priori basis, tested. • Variability investigated. • Useful. βeta juice

  26. MPI Scales:Comparison of means by institution type

  27. Correlation of regression variables with MPI mean

  28. Deriving coefficientsfor the Mission Engagement Index (MEI)

  29. Correlation of regression variables with Mission scale mean

  30. Predictive Equation* Institution Predicted MPI Score = (B1)*(Value of USN_setting)+(-0.414)*(1, 2, or 3) (B2)*(Value of Religious Affiliation)+(0.345)*(1 or 2) Constant(3.687) *Mortenson, T. (1997). Actual Vs Predicted institutional graduation rates for 1100 Colleges and universities. Opportunity, 58.

  31. Mock Mission Engagement Index Report • The MEI will show an institution’s actual versus predicted scores on mission constructs. • Progress on mission effectiveness can be assessed by comparing MEI outcomes to institutional goals.

  32. References Inside Higher Education (2009). Spiritual accountability. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/pri...assessment/01/02/2007/News Kuh, D. G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., and Whitt, E. J. (2005). Never let it rest: lessons about student success from high-performing colleges and universities. Change, 37(4), 44-51. Mortenson, T. (1997). Actual Vs predicted institutional graduation rates for 1100 colleges and universities. Opportunity, 58. Pacarella, E. T. (2001). Identifying excellence in undergraduate education. Change, 33(3), 18-27. Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

  33. Discussion

  34. Supported by a grant from http://www.teaglefoundation.org/grantmaking/grantees/assessmentmethods.aspx Assessing Institutional Effectivenesswith theMission Perception Inventory (MPI): Linking Mission GoalsandLearning Environment Ellen Boylan, Ph.D. Director of Institutional Research and Assessment eboylan@marywood.edu Sister Jane Wakahiu, LSOSF, MA Graduate Assistant jwakahiu@marywood.edu Office of Planning and Institutional Research http://cwis.marywood.edu/instresearch/activity.stm Marywood University

  35. MPI Mission Perception Inventory Assessing Institutional Effectiveness with the Mission Perception Inventory (MPI): Linking Mission Goals and Learning Environment North Carolina State University Undergraduate Assessment SymposiumAligning Pedagogy, Curriculum & Assessment April 24-26, 2009 Ellen Boylan, Ph.D. and Sister Jane Wakahiu, LSOSF • Marywood University

More Related