USING STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME DATA AT COMMUNITY COLLEGES: 
UNDERSTANDING THE HOW 

By 

Mathew Devereaux 

A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to  
Michigan State University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for the degree of  

Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education—Doctor of Philosophy 

2025  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABSTRACT 

This study explores how a community college successfully implemented and sustained 

the use of student learning outcome (SLO) assessment data to improve institutional quality. 

Utilizing interpretivist exploratory case study methodology, the research examines a community 

college recognized for its excellence in assessment practices by the National Institute for 

Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). The theoretical framework used to ground this 

research is Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) Model of Organizational Change, while the conceptual 

framework utilized is Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Four Frames Model. Data collection included 

semi-structured interviews with faculty, staff, and administrators.  

Findings from this study reveal three overarching themes critical to the success of the 

initiative: (a) managing conflict and resistance, (b) the role of integrated leadership in driving 

change, and (c) building a culture of assessment through collaboration and inclusivity. Practical 

implications emphasize the need for institutions to create systems of peer support, align 

assessment practices with institutional missions, and train leaders in multi-frame analysis to 

navigate organizational complexity. These findings provide actionable insights for institutions, 

similar to the one studied in this dissertation, striving to close the assessment loop and improve 

student success through evidence-based decision making. 

 
 
 
Copyright by 
MATHEW DEVEREAUX 
2025 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

First, and foremost, I want to acknowledge my parents, Mike and Julie Devereaux, who 

instilled in me both the importance of education and the will to pursue my long-term goals. As 

lifelong public school administrators, their reverence for education was exhibited through their 

actions and inspired me to pursue and persevere the goal of obtaining my PhD. 

I must also acknowledge all of the positive support I received from my dissertation chair 

and advisor, Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski. While he sometimes told me things I didn’t want to hear, 

Dr. Wawrzynski always told me what I needed to hear. I thank you for your patience and 

wisdom along the way. 

I would also like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Wayne Sneath and Dr. Kriss Ferluga. 

Wayne, your support as I tried to balance my career and education was crucial to my success. I 

couldn’t ask for a better boss and friend. Kriss, your experience and input with the writing 

process was irreplaceable. Thank you for your time and effort in helping me through this.  

To my wife, Vanessa, this process has not been easy and I want to thank you for your 

constant support and sacrifice. There were lots of late nights waiting for me to drive back from 

East Lansing where you had to take care of our family alone. Thank you and I love you. To 

Lincoln and Delainey, thank you for always helping me feel better during the times this 

dissertation got overwhelming. To Maren, you have been my single biggest inspiration to finish 

this program. Without you, I very well may have fallen short. The reason I kept going is because 

I wanted to make you proud, and I hope I accomplished that. 

iv 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……………..…………………………………………………..1 

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW………………….……………………………………..12 

CHAPTER 3: METHODS………………….……………………………………………………48 

CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND INFORMATION…………….………………………………..61 

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS & THE FOUR FRAMES WORKING IN ISOLATION…………….68 

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS & THE INTEGRATION OF THE FOUR FRAMES…..…………..101 

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH…………………………………..117 

REFERENCES…………………………………...…………………………………………….137  

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL…………………………………………………...149 

APPENDIX B: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE....…………………………………………151 

APPENDIX C: CONSENT FORM….…………....…………………………………………....152 

v 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

In higher education literature it is common to hear an author state that the field is not a 

monolith, rather there are a multitude of institutional types, each of which serve their own 

mission. Further, some institutional types, such as community colleges, serve multiple missions 

(Dougherty & Townsend, 2006). According to Ewell (2011), many community colleges 

simultaneously provide the first two years of a baccalaureate degree, associate degree instruction 

in many vocational fields that carries transfer credit, terminal occupational credentialing that has 

immediate workplace value, remedial and developmental instruction to render students college 

ready, noncredit instruction (i.e., literacy training and English as a Second Language), and 

contract training for employers and local businesses. While no two higher education institutions 

(HEI) are the same, every HEI in the United States deals with similar demands for accountability 

from their various stakeholder groups (i.e., students, parents, faculty, staff, lawmakers, 

taxpayers). The most resounding of calls for accountability came from the U.S. Department of 

Education with the release of The Future of Higher Education, commonly referred to as The 

Spellings Report in 2006. The report painted a seemingly bleak outlook for the landscape of 

higher education and plainly stated the need for more proactive measures of accountability to 

address this outlook. 

The boisterous call from the Federal Government created attention and action around the 

idea of using student learning outcomes (SLO) assessment data as an empirical means of holding 

HEIs accountable and proving value to stakeholders (Rhodes, 2015). According to Hernon and 

Dugan (2004), SLO assessment can be used as a means of ensuring institutional effectiveness by 

using the results for continuous improvement efforts. The good news is nearly all HEIs are 

attempting to show accountability by gathering SLO assessment data (Blaich & Wise, 2011). 

1 

 
 
One reason for the high level of participation in SLO assessment is because HEIs are compelled 

to do so as a part of the accreditation process. For example, the Higher Learning Commission, a 

nationally recognized regional accreditation body, requires, “The institution demonstrates a 

commitment to educational achievement and improvement through ongoing assessment of 

student learning.” (HLC Policy, 2019).  

The compulsory nature of the calls for SLO assessment coupled with high levels of 

compliance among HEIs shows that demands for accountability are being taken seriously. The 

problem is, even though a vast majority of HEIs are making an effort to engage in the assessment 

process, simply engaging in the assessment of SLOs without acting on the results to improve 

learning outcomes has the potential to be counterproductive in terms of wasted resources and low 

morale. For example, 58% of faculty surveyed said assessment efforts seem focused on 

satisfying outside groups and do nothing to help students (Lederman, 2018). Further empirical 

research seems to support these faculty perceptions. For example, in the Wabash National Study, 

Blaich and Wise (2011) found very few instances of actual change in response to information 

generated by institutional assessment of SLOs, and the reason provided for the lack of instances 

is very simple, “It is incredibly difficult to translate assessment evidence into improvements in 

student learning.” (p. 11). The information above leaves a glaring question: Are any institutions 

effectively using SLO assessment data to change and improve institutional quality?  

Purpose of Study 

Ironically, one constant in higher education is pressure to change. These pressures may 

arise from internal forces, for example institutional improvement plans, or from external forces, 

like new accreditation standards. Agents within HEIs continually seek ways to promote student 

learning with the end goal being to improve institutional quality, and these intentional acts 

2 

 
 
carried out in furtherance of desired new direction are what Kezar (2014) considers change. 

There are a multitude of factors that can impact what, why, and when change occurs, but of 

particular importance to this study is the question of how change occurs. The purpose of this 

study is to gain an understanding of how an institution gets to a point where they can 

successfully use SLO assessment data to change, with the goal being to improve institutional 

quality.  

The process of using SLO assessment data to change toward improving institutional 

quality is popularly referred to in the literature as “closing the loop.” Calls for closing the loop 

by using SLO assessment to improve institutional quality are ubiquitous in higher education 

literature (Baker, Jankowski, Provezis, & Kinzie, 2012; Banta & Blaich, 2011; Driscoll & Wood, 

2007; Suskie, 2018). However, as Hamill (2015) points out, scant evidence exists on how to 

carry out this task. Due to the lack of evidence, this dissertation seeks to understand how a 

specific community college—recognized by the National Institute for Learning Outcomes 

Assessment (NILOA) for obtaining the Excellence in Assessment designation—got to the point 

where they are using SLO assessment data to change and improve institutional quality 

(Excellence in Assessment, n.d.). Put another way, this project will seek to gain understanding 

into the process of how a particular community college got to the point where they are 

effectively closing the loop. 

Understanding Organizational Behavior Broadly: A Conceptual Framework 

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief description of the conceptual framework 

used to understand organizational behavior in a very broad sense. A fuller description of the 

conceptual framework can be found in the literature review section. Gordon Carstedt once said, 

“The world simply can’t be made sense of, facts can’t be organized, unless you have a mental 

3 

 
 
model to begin with” (as cited in Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 11). The mental model used to 

organize and make sense of results from this study is Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Reframing 

Organizations, which will act as a conceptual framework (see Figure 1). This framework 

outlines four distinct frames, through which organizational issues may be understood: structural, 

human resource, political, and symbolic. The reason I chose this conceptual framework is 

because organizations are complex structures, which require cooperation of various individuals 

and groups who often have differing views, beliefs, and motives, and these multiple frames will 

allow for a more complex understanding of organizational issues (Bolman & Deal, 2017; 

Markóczy, 2004). This broad conceptual frame provided various lines of inquiry to probe during 

the data collection phase of the study. 

Understanding How Organizations Change: A Theoretical Framework 

The purpose of this section is to provide a brief description of the theoretical framework 

used to understand how organizations change. A fuller description of the theoretical framework 

can also be found in the literature review section. According to Regoniel (2012), a theoretical 

framework can provide a representation of the relationships between variables in a given 

phenomenon. Understanding how colleges change is not an easy task, in fact, there is an entire 

field of study dedicated to change management. A comprehensive model of organizational 

change presented in the book Organizational Behavior and Management (Ivancevich, 

Konopaske, & Matteson, 2014) is used to understand how the specific institution in question 

engaged in the change process (see Figure 2). While institutions are largely free to change how 

they see fit, community colleges are currently compelled to engage in change based on evidence 

gathered through SLO assessment (U.S. Department of Education, 2019; HLC Policy, 2019). 

External forces requiring community colleges to engage in this change process have effectively 

4 

 
 
fulfilled a portion of Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model—performance outcomes, diagnosis of the 

problem, and selection of appropriate method of change. Because much of the change process is 

outside of community college’s locus of control, this study aims specifically to understand the 

remaining portions of the change process that are within the institution’s locus of control. The 

portions of the change process under consideration for this study fall in the bottom portion of 

Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model in Figure 2—impediments and limiting conditions, 

implementation of the method, and program evaluation.  

Research Question 

The overarching question to be answered by this study is, “How did one particularly 

successful community college implement and sustain the use of SLO assessment data to improve 

institutional quality?” Specifically, an institution who has been successful in SLO assessment is 

defined as one who integrates assessment practices throughout the institution, provides evidence 

of student learning outcomes, and uses assessment results to guide institutional decision-making 

and improve student performance (Excellence in Assessment, n.d.).  

Scant information currently exists on how community colleges implement the practice of 

using SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality. Due to this lack of scholarship, an 

exploratory case study on how one particularly successful community college got to the point 

where they are using SLO data to improve institutional quality is warranted. This study examines 

an institution who has been recognized by NILOA as achieving their Excellence in Assessment 

designation. Focusing on a single institution allows for a fuller understanding of my research 

question, “how did one particularly successful community college get to the point where they are 

implementing and sustaining the use of SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality?”  

5 

 
 
 
 
Significance of Study 

The following are three specific implications this study has for the higher education 

community:  

1. Higher education’s crisis of perceived value  

2. Community college’s importance to higher education as a whole  

3. Institutional consequences of collecting SLO data and not using it.  

Crisis of Perceived Value 

Since the release of the Spellings Report (2006), questions surrounding the value of 

higher education have risen to the top of the national conversation. According to Kelchen (2018), 

the most commonly cited reason for this push towards assessing educational quality is to prove 

the monetary value of higher education. The continual increase in cost of tuition and fees—

which is increasing much faster than inflation—coupled with a decrease in public appropriations 

continues to be a driving factor in the $1.4 trillion student debt crisis (Fain, 2018). These 

interconnected financial pressures have, and will continue to, drive the constant calls for 

accountability in higher education (Fain, 2018).  

A recent Gallup polling report from Jones (2018) shows just how accurate the Spellings 

Commission’s (2006) predictions of heightened calls for accountability and waning public 

support for higher education were. According to Jones (2018), only 48% of American adults 

responding to polling expressed confidence in the value of higher education. Public trust in the 

quality and value of higher education has eroded over a long period of time and will likely take a 

long time to regain it. Banta and Blaich, (2011) argue that only by holding institutions publicly 

accountable for evidence of learning will we ensure that student learning is among the high-

priority activities in which colleges and universities engage.  

6 

 
 
The rapid decline in public perception of quality in American higher education negatively 

affects the legitimacy of the entire field, so finding a way to empirically improve the quality of 

higher education is a crucial first step in reestablishing trust that higher education is a public 

good worth pursuing. By gaining an understanding of the organizational process undertaken by a 

community college that has successfully implemented and sustained the use of SLO assessment 

data to improve institutional quality, others in the community college sector may reimagine 

existing or develop new processes for using SLO data to improve their institutional quality. 

Relying on more direct and empirical measures of student learning may help to rebuild public 

trust in the quality and value of higher education that has been lost over recent years.   

Importance of Community Colleges to Higher Education 

Since the inception of the first American community college in 1901—Joliet Junior 

College—these institutions have played a key role in facilitating the massification of higher 

education (Drury, 2003; Geiger, 2011). According to the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) and the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSC), 38% of all students 

enrolled in higher education in the United States are attending community colleges while 49% of 

all 4-year students in the 2015-2016 academic year attended a community college within the last 

10 years (Ginder & Kelly-Reid, 2018; NSC, 2017). These statistics demonstrate how important 

the community college sector is to the overall health of higher education. 

Not only are community colleges in some way affecting nearly half of all students in 

higher education, they play a particularly important role in the lives of many marginalized 

populations, such as older students, low socioeconomic students, and racial and ethnic 

minorities. For example, 42% of students enrolled at community colleges are 25 years of age or 

older (Ma & Baum, 2016). Adult learners often bring unique challenges to their educational 

7 

 
 
experiences and are more likely to encounter educational obstacles such as attending college 

while working full-time, being a spouse, and or caring for dependents (Fairchild, 2003; Quaye & 

Harper, 2014). According to the Community College Research Center, community colleges also 

enroll, by far, the largest number of beginning postsecondary students who come from the lowest 

household income quartile (“Community College FAQs”, n.d.).  Students from low 

socioeconomic backgrounds encounter unique challenges, which can act as social, psychological, 

and or physiological barriers to success (Jury et al., 2017). Lastly, racial and ethnic minorities, 

specifically Black and Hispanic students, are overrepresented at community colleges and 

underrepresented at 4-year universities (“Community College FAQs”, n.d.). For the 2014 cohort, 

31% of first-time full-time undergraduates attended public two-year institutions. Of this group, 

36% were Black students, while 43% were Hispanic, and only 28% were White (Ma & Baum, 

2016). Research over the years has shown time and again that students from racial and ethnic 

minority groups, especially Black and Hispanic students, tend to encounter more barriers to 

success and achieve consistently lower educational outcomes than other groups (Ward, 2006).  

This evidence clearly shows how important community colleges are in terms of 

accessibility, not only to American higher education as a whole, but particularly to some of the 

more vulnerable populations. The hope is by understanding how one very successful institution 

got to the point of using SLO data to improve institutional quality, other community colleges 

may be motivated to undertake similar organizational changes to successfully close the 

assessment loop. Also, by focusing efforts on the community college sector, this study has the 

potential to help improve institutional quality at institutions who serve a majority of our most 

vulnerable and marginalized student populations.  

8 

 
 
 
Institutional Consequences of Collecting SLO Data and Not Using it 

The last reason this study had to be conducted is because it has potential to help 

institutions who are struggling with the detrimental effects of being forced to engage in 

assessment of SLOs without having a plan for using the data. According to Kinzie, Hutchings, 

and Jankowski, (2015, p. 56)  

The purpose of assessment is not achieved simply through the collection of vast amounts 

of valid and reliable data. Rather, assessment’s purpose is to answer questions, shape 

better policies, make better decisions—all designed to improve student success and 

strengthen institutional performance. 

There are opportunity costs from engaging in a task and not following through 

completely, which can have negative impacts on time, resources, and often employee morale 

(Cain, 2014; Chadi, Jeworrek, & Mertins, 2017). The requirement of assessing SLOs will likely 

continue to be essential for all HEIs. By carrying out this study, community colleges who are 

struggling to effectively use SLO assessment may learn from an institution who is doing it 

successfully. By expanding the collective understanding of how community colleges can 

successfully use SLO data to improve institutional quality, this study may help these institutions 

be more purposeful and effective with their SLO data collection and subsequent use of data to 

drive institutional improvement. 

Why Using SLO Data to Improve is so Difficult 

Developing and implementing an effective SLO assessment plan is becoming a necessity 

for every institution of higher education, but this development has proven to be very difficult. 

Regardless of the level of institution, the process of using SLO assessment data to improve is 

made difficult because ensuring institutional commitment, especially from faculty, but also from 

9 

 
 
administration, is challenging. Historically, faculty members in higher education have proven to 

be less than enthusiastic about engaging in assessment practices, especially when those 

assessment practices are seen as being forced upon them (MacDonald, Williams, Lazowski, 

Horst, & Barron, 2014). Another reason why using SLO assessment data to improve institutional 

quality is so difficult has to do with the need for human capital to carry out the task. Organizing, 

implementing, analyzing, and subsequent strategic planning based on results of SLO assessment 

is something that requires a lot of resources and time, which community colleges, generally, do 

not have (Nunley, Bers, & Manning, 2011). A final reason why using SLO assessment data to 

drive institutional improvement has proven to be challenging is because it can be difficult to 

select or develop valid and reliable measures (Nunley, Bers, & Manning, 2011). The previous 

reasons provided are by no means an exhaustive list of reasons why community colleges are 

finding it difficult to use SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality, but they are some 

of the more commonly cited reasons in the literature. 

Summary of Chapter 

The sections of Chapter 1 laid the groundwork for this study by introducing the topic 

broadly, discussing the purpose of the research, previewing the conceptual and theoretical 

underpinnings, presenting the research questions, and developing rationale for the significance of 

this work. Using SLO assessment data to inform institutional effectiveness initiatives can help 

community colleges close the assessment loop and provide empirical support to bolster the value 

of higher education. By gaining a deep understanding of how one particularly successful 

community college got to the point where they are using SLO assessment data to improve 

institutional quality, this study aims to provide a prototype for success. It is important to note the 

goal of this study is not necessarily to be prescriptive for all other community colleges. However, 

10 

 
 
 
when there is a lack of scholarship surrounding a particular topic—as is the case with community 

colleges using SLO assessment data to drive institutional improvement—providing a detailed 

example of how this challenge is addressed successfully can be a productive place to start. 

11 

 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 

This study seeks to understand how one community college got to a point where they are 

successfully implementing and sustaining the use of SLO assessment data to improve 

institutional quality. This is a complex issue, which requires an understanding of relevant 

scholarship from a range of subjects. The purpose of this literature review is to introduce and 

analyze some integral concepts at play in the field of SLO assessment and to show how they 

converge to apply pressure on institutions in the community college sector. Specifically, the 

concepts of accountability, accreditation, and assessment of SLOs; current knowledge of using 

SLO assessment data; and the conceptual and theoretical frameworks—which will help inform 

the direction of inquiry and make meaning of results—are discussed at length in this section. 

Beyond simply defining the aforementioned issues, this section also seeks to apply a critical eye 

to these concepts bringing to light the challenges they pose to community colleges.  

The constant pressure—both internal and external—upon institutions to assess and use 

SLO data to improve institutional quality, coupled with a lack of literature on how to engage in 

this task, can be a cause of great pressure for any HEI. However, community colleges are 

particularly susceptible to this pressure due to woeful staffing levels in institutional research 

offices, which is where assessment responsibilities typically fall (Morest & Jenkins, 2007). The 

susceptibility to pressure from inefficient staffing, which is common to many community 

colleges, is a major reason why this study aims to understand how one community college 

effectively and continually uses SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality. 

Accountability, Accreditation, and Assessment: Differentiating Key Terms 

When reading the literature on student learning outcomes, several key concepts arise 

early and often. Specifically, the ideas of accountability, accreditation, and assessment are 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
repeated ad nauseam. What is most disconcerting is that while these concepts are ubiquitous in 

the literature, they are often conflated, which leads to more confusion for community college 

practitioners who are trying to address these issues. The goal of this section is to introduce and 

operationalize each of these concepts and discuss how they affect community colleges. The use 

of metaphors is often a helpful tool in conveying how complex ideas work because they aid in 

making associations between one familiar concept and another (Jensen, 2006). In explaining how 

accountability, accreditation, and assessment are separate but interconnected concepts, a 

metaphorical comparison can be drawn. Metaphorically speaking, accountability can be seen as a 

destination, accreditation a vehicle, and assessment a map. Using this metaphor, this section 

provides evidence for how each of these concepts work to create pressure on community 

colleges. 

Accountability 

By design, the American system of higher education is large and unorganized, and this 

haphazard structure has brought with it some real benefits like independence, diversity, and 

competition for excellence (Carey & Schneider, 2010). As Carey and Schneider (2010) also 

point out though, this lack of organization has led many institutions toward seeking individual 

interests at the expense of the collective national interest. Zumeta (2011) aptly points out, if 

higher education places too much emphasis on independence at the expense of broad public 

goals, the field risks its reputation, and ultimately its independence. The balance between 

complete institutional independence and rigid oversight is the crux of the accountability debate 

in higher education.  

Broadly speaking, accountability can be defined as a responsibility for one’s actions to 

various stakeholders, which usually arises as a result of legal, political, financial, personal, or 

13 

 
 
moral ties (Zumeta, 2011). The concept of holding institutions of higher education accountable 

for their actions is not a new one, and as Marchand and Stoner (2012) put it, “whoever pays the 

bill for higher education is, of course, entitled to an accounting” (p. 18). However, what makes 

the concept of accountability particularly complex is the fact that it is a social construction, 

therefore its meaning is highly contextualized and depends on the time and space in which it is 

being used (Zumeta, 2011). Until recently, accountability in higher education was seen as a 

literal accounting of the flow of input resources and of how decisions were made by individuals 

in charge (McLendon, Hearn, & Deaton, 2006). Results of these accountability efforts were 

expected to be reported to a diverse set of stakeholders (i.e., students, parents, state and federal 

taxpayers, donors, and institutions themselves). However, several periods of rapid expansion 

coupled with large public investments have led to a more established model of accountability for 

American higher education (Ewell & Jones, 2006).  

The release of the Spellings Report in 2006 started a seismic shift in what it meant for an 

institute of higher education to be held accountable. The previous focus on only resource inputs 

has evolved to include more attention on performance outcomes, specifically SLOs (McLendon 

et al., 2006). The Spellings Report clearly articulates the importance of SLOs in determining 

accountability with the following statement, 

Despite increased attention to student learning results by colleges and universities and 

accreditation agencies, parents and students have no solid evidence, comparable across 

institutions, of how much students learn in colleges or whether they learn more at one 

college than another(U.S. Department of Education, 2006, p. 13).  

While the exact definition of accountability for any one institution of higher education can vary 

depending on who, specifically, is holding them to account, the National Association of 

14 

 
 
Independent Colleges and Universities along with the American Federation of Teachers, agree 

the essence of what constitutes accountability in higher education is found in the evidence of 

SLOs (Ewell & Jones, 2006). Thanks in large part to the Spellings Report, the destination of 

accountability is coming into sharp focus for community colleges, but these institutions must 

also have intimate knowledge of their vehicle—a clear understanding of the mechanisms for 

moving toward the destination—in order to reach that destination. 

Accreditation 

Metaphorically, if accountability is the destination for HEIs, accreditation is the vehicle 

that gets them there. The goal of accreditation, according to the U.S. Department of Education, is 

to ensure that institutions of higher education meet acceptable levels of quality, and is one of 

three elements of oversight used by the government to recognize the legitimacy of an institution 

of higher education (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). The first postsecondary accreditation 

body was established in 1895 with the goal of defining the boundary between high school and 

college, while also establishing a system of peer review as a condition of membership (Hegji, 

2017). Nearly a century later, in the 1980s, accreditation bodies began using SLOs as a means of 

holding institutions publicly accountable (Hegji, 2017; McLendon et al., 2006).  

For an accreditation agency to have the authority to compel HEIs to act, they must be 

recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). There 

are currently three broad types of accreditation bodies overseeing the field of higher education in 

the U.S.: (a) regional accreditors, which grant acceptance to an entire institution, and as of 2017 

3,509 institutions are regionally accredited; (b) national accreditors, which also grant acceptance 

to entire institutions and as of 2017 there are 241 nationally accredited institutions; and (c) 

specialized or programmatic accreditors who also operate across the nation but focus on specific 

15 

 
 
programs within an institution and institutions with a single purpose (i.e., engineering and 

technological schools) (Hegji, 2017). According to the NCES data, as of 2016 there were 4,583 

degree-granting institutions in the U.S., which means the 3,509 HEIs under regional accreditors’ 

purview accounts for roughly 75% of all HEIs in the U.S. (Hegji, 2017; NCES, n.d.). Because 

regional accreditors are responsible for overseeing a majority of all HEIs in the U.S., they tend to 

be viewed as having more authority compared to other types of accrediting groups. Currently, 

there are seven regional accreditation agencies who together make up a group called the Council 

for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) (CHEA, 2019). 

When it comes to the accreditation process, community colleges face some unique 

challenges. Historically, community colleges serve multiple missions and offer a multitude of 

educational programs, which commonly fall into a few broad functions: transfer preparation, 

career and technical education programs, remedial education, and non-credit programs (e.g., 

community education, continuing education) (Baime & Baum, 2016). Because of these multiple 

missions, community colleges must meet accreditation standards for several different 

accreditation bodies. For example, along with meeting standards for regional accreditation 

through the Higher Learning Commission, Lansing Community College must report to 15 

programmatic accreditation bodies (Lansing Community College, 2019). According to the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Accreditation Handbook (2019) accreditation agencies must 

demonstrate they have standards, which address institutional success in relation to student 

achievement. Therefore, community colleges should focus their assessment efforts toward the 

gathering and use of SLO assessment data in order to fulfill a large portion of their accreditation 

requirements in one process. This streamlining may have the potential to relieve a great deal of 

16 

 
 
both internal and external pressure from stakeholders, while at the same time conserving 

resources by reducing redundancy. 

Assessment of SLOs 

Continuing with the metaphor from the last section, if accountability is the destination 

and accreditation the vehicle, then assessment of student learning outcomes is the map that 

guides institutions down the most direct path to accountability. Linda Suskie (2010) spoke 

eloquently and succinctly on the function of assessment when she stated, “Assessment is simply 

a vital tool to help us make sure we fulfill the crucial promises we make to our students and 

society” (para. 7). While assessment is vitally important for community colleges, it is important 

for institutions to remember that it is one only one, albeit integral, piece of a puzzle, and should 

not be the ends in and of itself. 

There is great diversity among U.S. institutions of higher education, however one 

enduring promise made to students in the mission of nearly every HEI is the goal of academic 

growth among the student body (Gaff & Meacham, 2006; Suskie, 2010). Many institutions of 

higher education espouse similar rhetoric in their mission statements about the topic of student 

learning. Often, these statements make broad claims about empowering students to reach their 

educational goals and develop lifelong skills that will prepare them for the workforce and civil 

society. These claims, as stated, can be very difficult to measure, especially when institutions 

rely on traditional metrics of institutional assessment such as incoming student characteristics, 

retention rate, and graduation rate (Alfred, Ewell, Hudgins, & McClenney, 1999). If solely 

relying on traditional metrics of institutional assessment like the ones mentioned above, one 

might conclude if an institution is providing adequate access, retaining, and graduating a large 

number of students, then the institution is succeeding, yet merely focusing on completion may 

17 

 
 
not be good enough (Ramaley, 2012). Newer measures of institutional effectiveness have 

become popular in recent years, which include job placement rates, starting salary, amount of 

debt, but it is argued that these, like the older measures of effectiveness, are mere proxies for the 

true goal of higher education—student learning (Rhodes, 2015). These proxy measures tell us 

nothing of what, when, where, or how a student learns, and they definitely do not speak to the 

quality of knowledge, skills, and abilities they learned while at the institution. On the other hand, 

Ikenbery and Kuh (2015) claim one way to broaden access, contain cost, while at the same time 

enhance student success for all is to use SLOs as metrics for institutional accountability. If a 

central tenet of most community college missions is to help students grow academically (Gaff & 

Meacham, 2006; Suskie, 2010), then SLOs should be used by these institutions to assess if they 

are succeeding in attaining their mission, and in understanding how they can become more 

successful. By gaining an in-depth understanding of how one institution has been particularly 

successful at implementing and sustaining the use of SLO assessment data to improve 

institutional quality, other similar institutions may be able to use this knowledge in similar 

efforts. 

There is a vast difference between the act of gathering SLO data and the act of using that 

data to inform action. While very little is known about the question of how institutions use SLO 

data, there is quite a bit of existing scholarship about the act of assessing and gathering data on 

SLOs. The following subsections provide a landscape of the current state of SLO assessment in 

the community college sector by addressing some basic questions including: (a) What is 

assessment or what forms may it take? (b) Where within the institution assessment may be 

conducted or at what level of measurement? (c) Why should institutions assess or what function 

does it serve? (d) Who is currently assessing SLOs? (e) How are institutions assessing SLOs? 

18 

 
 
What SLO Assessment is (Form)? 

In simple terms, assessment can be seen as a tool used to compare an intended outcome 

with actual outcomes (National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, n.d.). However, 

one potential reason why community colleges have struggled with assessing SLOs is because 

assessment does not have a singular form or function. For example, an assessment can be direct 

(e.g., a 50-question algebra test) or indirect (e.g., a survey asking a student their perceptions of 

how much they learned in algebra class). While both types can be helpful in providing insight 

into student learning, accreditation agencies require direct measures of SLOs (U.S. Department 

of Education, 2019).  

Referring to form, there are several forms or types of direct assessment methods 

including but not limited to embedded course assessment, which reflect student performance on a 

given course task. A portfolio, which is a collection of student work that shows a student’s 

achievement and progress over time. Performance assessment, which is a demonstration or task 

completed in the presence of evaluators who evaluate with a common rubric. Professional jurors 

or evaluators, who may come from outside agencies or industry to evaluate and provide feedback 

on student work. Achievement testing, which measures the degree to which a student has gained 

an understanding of course material. Papers or essays, which measure the extent to which a 

student can synthesize and apply knowledge learned during a course (Hernon & Dugan, 2004). 

The sheer volume of different forms assessments may take can be overwhelming to community 

colleges who are struggling to assess effectively. 

Where to Assess SLOs (Levels of Assessment)? 

 Assessment can and should take place at various levels of an organization. SLO 

assessment is most commonly measured at three distinct levels: institutional, program, course 

19 

 
 
(Seclosky & Denison, 2012). Institutional-level assessment evaluates the outcomes of the 

organization as a whole and the results may help inform strategic planning, decision making, 

accreditation, revising institutional outcomes, improving student engagement and success, 

creating a culture of teaching and learning, and enhancing faculty collaboration (Kinzie et al., 

2015). Program-level assessment is more focused on students, faculty, and learning outcomes 

within a major or discipline (Kinzie et al. 2015; Seclosky & Denison, 2012). Results of program-

level assessment are commonly used to set faculty priorities, determine professional 

development opportunities, improve student support services, revise curriculum, align 

curriculum, and to improve program outcomes (Kinzie et al., 2015). Lastly, course-level 

assessment is used to determine if students are meeting the intended learning outcomes of a 

given course, and results are commonly used to provide feedback to both students and faculty on 

their respective performances (Miller & Leskes, 2005).  

While community colleges should assess SLOs at each of these levels as part of a robust 

assessment plan, this study focuses on institutional-level assessment. The reason I have chosen to 

concentrate on this level is because understanding how a community college uses institutional-

level SLO data—as opposed to program or course-level data—to inform the improvement 

process provides the opportunity for a more holistic understanding of how assessment data is 

used in the institutional improvement process. Institutional-level data encompasses all programs 

and courses and is often overseen by interdisciplinary committees, which means all academic 

units of an institution are involved in institutional-level assessment. If an institution can manage 

to successfully use SLO data to improve at the institutional-level, successfully implementing the 

SLO assessment process at program and course-levels may prove to be easier.  

20 

 
 
 
Why Assess SLOs (Function)? 

Early research on educational assessment by Bloom (1968) showed some of the positive 

influences assessing student learning can have on informing instruction (William, 2011). Bloom 

(1968) argued the variability in student academic performance was merely a reflection of the 

differences in the rate at which students learn, and the fact that student academic performances 

often take on the characteristics of the normal distribution was caused by the failures of 

instructors to recognize differences in how students learn (William, 2011). The research on 

mastery learning conducted by Bloom (1968), along with his subsequent studies conducted in the 

1980s on the topic of using evaluation to inform learning, help build a compelling argument for 

why institutions should use SLO assessment data to improve teaching and learning. 

SLO assessment can serve several different functions. What follows is a list of some of 

the more popular uses of SLO assessment as identified by the Council of Chief State School 

Officers, (2012): 

●  Formative assessment, which is intended to be used during instruction to provide 

feedback on student learning and allow for differentiation of pedagogical practice. 

●  Summative assessment, which is intended to act as an evaluation of achievement and 

is usually administered after learning is supposed to have occurred. 

●  Diagnostic assessment, which is meant to provide an indication of knowledge 

students do or do not currently possess. 

●  Interim or benchmarking assessment, which is often used as periodic “snapshots” of 

student learning progression (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012).  

21 

 
 
One common misconception of the aforementioned assessment functions is they are “types” of 

assessment. In fact, the various types of assessment—mentioned in the form subsection—can be 

used to serve any and all of these functions.  

This section outlined several reasons why institutions engage in SLO assessment, but a 

common thread in all the examples provided in the previous paragraph is the idea of using 

assessment to aid in student learning. In reality, the most common rationale institutions provide 

when asked what motivates them to assess SLOs is to fulfill accreditation requirements (Kuh, 

Jankowski, Ikenberry, & Kinzie, 2014). This, somewhat superficial, rationale for engaging in 

SLO assessment may help explain why there are so few institutions actually using these data to 

improve institutional quality (Blaich & Wise, 2011).  

Who Currently Assesses SLOs? 

Those in charge of developing a plan for how their institution will engage in the 

assessment of SLOs must make many consequential decisions. Assessment practitioners must 

determine which form their SLO assessment will take as well as what function SLO assessment 

will serve for the institution. Research indicates the vast majority of HEIs are, at least, reporting 

on their efforts and intentions to assess SLOs. According to research conducted by the 

Association of American Colleges and Universities, 87% of academic officers polled assess 

SLOs across the curriculum, 11% claim they intend to begin assessing SLOs, while the 

remaining 2% acknowledge the need to begin (Association of American Colleges & Universities, 

2016). These results indicate HEIs of all kinds are taking broad calls for assessment seriously. 

Further, more recent research from Blaich and Wise (2011) found most institutions already have 

more than adequate SLO assessment policies and procedures in place, which are generating 

plenty of actionable evidence. As mentioned earlier, new expectations from both the U.S. 

22 

 
 
Department of Education and all recognized regional accreditation agencies requiring the direct 

assessment of SLOs have likely played a large role in motivating the majority of HEIs to begin 

the implementation and collection of SLO assessment data (U.S. Department of Education, 2019; 

Kuh et al., 2014). 

How are SLOs Assessed? 

While research indicates nearly all HEIs are implementing and collecting data from SLO 

assessment, there is a great deal of variation in how institutions complete this task (Baker et al., 

2012). Much of the current assessment literature focuses on the process of developing and 

enacting institutional assessment plans, and out of this research there have been a dearth of 

suggestions for best practice in SLO assessment. According to Hernon and Dugan (2004), “Best 

practice refers to the processes, practices, and systems that performed exceptionally well and are 

widely recognized as improving an organization’s performance and effectiveness.” (p. 303).  

The best practice literature yields some common themes regarding how institutions 

should develop and implement an SLO assessment plan. The following is a list of common 

themes found in a search of SLO assessment plan best practice literature: 

●  Begin with the end in mind. Know what information you want to gain from assessing 

SLOs. 

●  All stakeholder groups should be consulted throughout the process, but faculty 

participation in the development of SLO assessment tools and use of data is of utmost 

importance.  

●  Attempt to create a culture of assessment by linking SLO assessment to the 

institutional vision, mission, and goals.  

23 

 
 
●  Successful SLO assessment requires a commitment of adequate financial resources 

including training and professional development.  

●  Development and implementation of SLO assessment should be multifaceted in terms 

of level of measurement, form, and function, while adhering to accepted 

methodological standards.  

●  SLO assessment should be embedded within current institutional processes. The more 

authentic and less intrusive the assessment is for students and faculty the better.  

●  A clear communication strategy is necessary to bring legitimacy to the process and 

outcomes.  

●  Results from SLO assessment must be used to improve institutional outcomes 

(Crowell & Calamidas, 2015; Kinzie et al., 2015; Kinzie, Jankowski, & Provezis, 

2014; The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, 2010; Serban, 2004; 

Stassen, 2012).  

This list of common themes in SLO assessment best practice provides very broad 

suggestions for how institutions might implement an SLO assessment initiative, and because of 

the vague nature of these suggestions, no two HEIs engage in assessment of SLOs in the exact 

same way. With the vast majority of HEIs engaging in the assessing and gathering of data on 

SLOs (Kuh, et al., 2014), one might conclude the task of evaluating SLOs is being completed 

and the status quo is just fine, but that is not the case. Manning (2011) states, “The most 

important aspect of assessment is not that ‘we have done it’ but that ‘we have used the results to 

inform action’” (p. 19). As established in the introduction, community colleges are compelled to 

gather SLO data and use it to improve, and while there is reason to believe institutions are 

gathering the information, there is little evidence to show many institutions are using the data 

24 

 
 
they collect to improve institutional quality (Blaich & Wise, 2011; Kuh et al., 2015; Kuh et al., 

2014). 

Using SLO Data to Improve Institutional Quality 

The previous section discussed the act of assessing SLOs, specifically the questions 

addressed were of what, where, why, who, and how institutions are engaging in this action. 

There is a substantial amount of literature on the act of collecting SLO assessment data, and 

research suggests most institutions are engaging in the collection of SLO data (Blaich & Wise, 

2011). In this section, I discuss the topic of using SLO assessment data to improve institutional 

quality, which is a far less researched topic. The scholarship that does exist on the use of SLO 

assessment data speaks mostly to the questions of what actions can be taken and why those 

actions help to improve institutional quality. The following section critically examines the 

existing literature around what specific actions can be taken toward using SLO assessment data 

and why those specific actions can help institutions to improve institutional quality. 

Using SLO Data to Improve Institutional Quality: The What and Why 

The underlying reason most often stated in the literature for what and why actions should 

be taken to use SLO assessment data is to improve institutional quality, and the action of using 

SLO data to improve institutional quality are referred to as evidence-based decision-making 

(Ikenberry & Kuh, 2015). The Brookings Institute contends the ultimate objective for an 

educational institution engaging in evidence-based decision-making is to progress toward three 

outcomes (a) improved student learning, (b) increased equity, and (c) stronger accountability 

relationships amongst all stakeholder groups (Custer, King, Atinc, Reed, & Sethi, 2018). These 

three outcomes can be seen as the why institutions should be using SLO assessment data to 

improve institutional quality.  

25 

 
 
 
In the text Using Evidence of Student Learning to Improve Higher Education (Kuh et al., 

2015), the authors advanced five examples of good practice for using SLO assessment data to 

improve institutional quality including (a) allowing institutions to differentiate outcomes at 

distinct institutional levels, (b) beginning with the ends in mind, (c) leveraging external 

processes, (d) linking assessment to internal processes, (e) closing the loop (Kinzie et al., 2015). 

These five examples of good practice can be seen as the what institutions should be doing to 

successfully use SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality. This section will examine 

the five examples of good practice provided in Using Evidence of Student Learning to Improve 

Higher Education—the what—and show how each of these examples relates directly to The 

Brookings Institute’s three objectives for evidence-based decision-making—the why.  

What and Why: Differentiate Outcomes at Distinct Institutional Levels. 

The first actionable way SLO assessment data can be used to improve institutional 

quality is by differentiating outcomes at various institutional levels. Community colleges are 

stratified organizations whose success can be measured at aggregated or disaggregated levels 

including the institutional, program, and course-levels (Kinzie et al., 2015). Successfully 

engaging in both the measurement and use of SLO data can allow institutions to pursue various 

improvements at targeted levels of the organization. For example, research by Kuh et al. (2014) 

showed course and program level SLO data leading to more changes in the areas of policies, 

programs, and practices. On the other hand, Kinzie et al. (2015) posit institutional-level SLO 

data is being used more to strengthen connections between institutional goals and strategic 

planning, incorporating results in accreditation processes, revising institutional outcomes, 

improving student engagement and success, and improving teaching and learning.  

26 

 
 
Being able to aggregate or disaggregate SLO assessment data to understand success at 

various institutional levels allows institutions to address the three objectives put forth by The 

Brookings Institute in the following ways. First, by differentiating outcomes at various levels of 

the institution, faculty and administrators can gain a better understanding of where gaps in 

learning are occurring (Custer et al., 2018). According to Hutchings, Kinzie, and Kuh (2015), 

both the University of California-Davis and the University of Maryland-Baltimore County have 

begun engaging in a process called “evidence-based pedagogies” where they are leveraging SLO 

data to uncover obstacles to student success and develop interventions. Second, the idea of 

increasing equity in higher education does not merely apply to institutions’ acceptance policies, 

rather the issue of equity is just as important for students who are trying to complete their college 

journey. By being able to disaggregate SLO assessment data to the course-level, faculty can 

better address specific student needs and drive support for student academic services, which 

helps ensure all students have an equitable chance to succeed (Kinzie et al., 2015). Third, by 

analyzing institutional performance at various levels a clearer picture of accountability may be 

illustrated. For example, analysis at the institutional level may show students performing above a 

deemed acceptable level in their general education learning outcome categories. However, a 

disaggregated analysis could also show one particular program doing exceptionally well and 

another program underperforming. If only analyzed at the aggregated level, a great opportunity 

for institutional improvement could be missed. 

What and Why: Beginning with the Ends. 

As Beld (2010) suggests, assessment results are not the ends, rather using the results to 

improve teaching and learning, and subsequently improving institutional quality is the end goal 

of assessment. I argue by not relying on SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality, 

27 

 
 
 
 
institutions are failing to consider the true ends of the assessment process. For example, when 

attempting to characterize student outcomes, many institutions are still relying on traditional 

measures of institutional quality (e.g., retention, student to faculty ratio, employment status after 

graduation). By relying on traditional measures, these institutions are attempting to make claims 

about the ends of the assessment process—improved SLO achievement—by proxy, which rarely 

reflect student learning (Powell, 2013; Rhodes, 2015). Further, if institutions continue to gather 

traditional measures of institutional quality like the ones mentioned above, these data are not 

necessarily actionable and do not provide much insight into where or why students are failing to 

meet expected outcomes. Institutions must focus from the very beginning on how they will use 

the data collected. If the goal of an institution is to improve student learning, which most 

institutional mission statements reflect (Gaff & Meacham, 2006; Suskie, 2010), focusing 

assessment on SLOs and using those SLO data allows institutions to take a more direct path to 

that end (Kinzie et al., 2015). 

I believe beginning with the ends of the SLO assessment process in mind—using the 

SLO data to improve quality—will make The Brookings Institute’s first objective of improving 

student learning more attainable. Second, beginning with the ends of the SLO assessment 

process in mind can also increase equity for all students as seen in an example from Juniata 

College. Based on results from their SLO assessment results, faculty at Juniata College were 

worried their students’ writing ability were not meeting expectations, and subsequently scores on 

the National Survey of Student Engagement indicated students at their institution were not as 

engaged in the writing process as other peer institutions (Jankowski, 2011). Based on both sets of 

data, faculty developed new goals and curricular standards for their students, which they felt 

were more on par with the rigor of their peers (Jankowski, 2011). If students are held to lower 

28 

 
 
 
standards of rigor, they may be at a disadvantage for subsequent opportunities in life. Therefore, 

this increase in academic rigor and expectations for students at Juniata College is an example of 

using SLO assessment data to increase equity in higher education. Lastly, beginning the SLO 

assessment process with the ends in mind allows for enhanced accountability to all stakeholders 

by harvesting empirical and genuine academic artifacts from students. There seems to be a 

certain level of agreement—at least among accreditors and the federal government—that 

accountability for community colleges is contingent on evidence of student learning (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2019; Higher Learning Commission, 2019). Going directly to the 

source—SLO assessment data—to assess institutional performance as opposed to using 

traditional proxy measures allows community colleges to take the most direct route to 

accountability as laid out by both the government and accreditors. 

What and Why: Leveraging External Processes. 

As discussed in previous sections, one of the best practices of engaging in assessment of 

SLOs is to be as least intrusive as possible. For example, faculty are encouraged to embed SLO 

assessments into the classroom just as they would any other assignment. Embedding assessments 

within a course allows for the assessment to count as SLO data as well as a normal course grade. 

In a similar vein, community colleges are already mandated to engage in the collection of SLO 

assessment data to satisfy accreditation requirements, so using these data to also develop quality 

improvement initiatives helps to decrease redundancy. Results from NILOA’s survey of provosts 

revealed the accreditation process was the most common reason cited for using SLO assessment 

data (Kuh & Ikenberry, 2009). Kinzie et al. (2015) argue even though the accreditation process 

can sometimes make SLO assessment less meaningful, it can and should be used as a motivator 

for using the SLO data to make institutional improvements. To speak colloquially, using SLO 

29 

 
 
 
 
assessment data to improve institutional quality can allow community colleges to kill two birds 

with one stone. 

Mooring the idea of leveraging external processes back to The Brookings Institute’s three 

objectives for using evidence-based decision-making is quite simple. The external process of 

accreditation is the most frequent reason SLOs are gathered on campuses (Blaich & Wise, 2011), 

while a second purpose of accreditation is to ensure institutions can exhibit evidence of student 

learning and attempt to improve student learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2019; Higher 

Learning Commission, 2019). Therefore, if an institution is improving student learning through 

SLO assessment data, they should inherently be fulfilling all three of the objectives of evidence-

based decision-making. 

What and Why: Linking Assessment to Internal Processes. 

A major finding in the SLO assessment research suggests normalizing the assessment 

process through organizational structures and culture is an extremely important, yet challenging, 

step for any community college trying to ensure the success of an SLO assessment initiative 

(Barrett, 2012; Beld, 2010; Chaplot, 2010; Colson, Berg, Hunt, & Mitchell, 2017; Head, 2015; 

Holzweiss, Bustamante, & Fuller, 2016; McCullough & Jones, 2014; Petrides & McClelland, 

2007; Powell, 2013; Rosaen, Hayes, Paroske, & De La Mare, 2013; Somerville, 2008; Walser, 

2015; Zubrow, 2012). As far as linking organizational structures to the SLO assessment process, 

Kinzie et al. (2015) suggest the creation of positions specifically for assessment purposes is a key 

first step in developing a sustainable SLO assessment initiative. For example, a focus group 

conducted by Kinzie (2010) reported campus staff felt the creation of an associate dean for 

student learning position was a catalyst in creating an ingrained culture of assessment at their 

community college. The associate dean was responsible for collaborating with existing 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
committees who dealt with assessment, which allowed for a stronger link between all areas of the 

academic mission and the SLO assessment process (Kinzie, 2010). 

By linking to, or creating, internal structures in furtherance of the SLO assessment 

process, community colleges may subsequently create an enduring culture of assessment, which 

Kinzie et al. (2015) suggest is critical to sustain any SLO assessment initiative. Similar to 

leveraging external structures related inherently to the three broad outcomes of evidence-based 

decision-making set forth by The Brookings Institute, linking assessment to internal processes is 

also inherently tied to these three broad outcomes. By linking assessment to internal processes, 

institutions are acting in furtherance of improving student learning overall (Kinzie et al., 2015).  

What and Why: Closing the Loop. 

The essence of my study lies within the idea of closing the assessment loop, defined by 

Kinzie et al. (2015) as, “measuring the impact of the action taken to improve student learning 

and, the ultimate stage, gaining evidence of improved student learning.” (p.69). What is 

important to remember is that assessment is never complete. Once closed, the assessment loop is 

then repeated in future iterations toward further improvement of institutional quality. The 

problem is very few institutions have achieved this goal (Banta & Blaich, 2011). While the goal 

of closing the loop has proven elusive for many community colleges, Kinzie et al. (2015) have 

established the following vital steps for this process: (a) taking time to reflect on assessment 

results, (b) documenting changes made based on results, (c) examining if the implemented 

changes proved to be successful.  

Linking the idea of closing the loop to the ultimate objective of evidence-based decision-

making put forth by the Brookings Institution is, again, quite intuitive. First, by closing the 

assessment loop, institutions are establishing changes based on current SLOs with the express 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
goal of improving those outcomes. Second, by attempting to improve SLOs at the aggregated 

(institutional) level as well as at disaggregated (program and course) levels, institutions can 

better understand which student groups need more attention, thus enhancing equity. Lastly, by 

closing the loop and continuing to engage in the assessment process through subsequent 

iterations, institutions can show stakeholder groups empirical evidence of their institutional 

improvement efforts.  

What is Left to Know: The How 

To reiterate, the goal of this study is to understand how an institution got to the point of 

using SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality. To this point, I have discussed why 

institutions should take actions toward using SLO data to improve institutional quality along 

with what actions can be taken to advance toward this end. While the literature has addressed 

many issues of what to do and why to do it in the context of using SLO assessment data, I 

believe the most significant barrier preventing more community colleges from using SLO 

assessment data to improve institutional quality is a lack of understanding as to how this can be 

done.  

Overall, scholarship in the field of higher education is full of best practices. As presented 

in the previous section, there are even best practices for using SLO assessment data. 

Unfortunately, best practices are often general and unclear about how to enact the advice (Fullan, 

2004) or full of what Argyris (2000) refers to as “nonactionable advice”. In other words, best 

practice literature often does a great job of answering questions of what and why, but how is a 

key question that is often overlooked and is precisely what I seek to understand. 

This section goes into greater depth explaining the frameworks that were 

introduced in the first chapter and how they were used to interpret collected data. First, I discuss 

32 

 
 
 
the conceptual framework from Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Reframing Organizations 

highlighting areas of relevance to this study. Second, I discuss the theoretical framework from 

Ivancevich et al. (2014) Organizational Behavior and Management, again highlighting areas of 

relevance to this study. 

Conceptual Framework: The Four Frames. 

As evidenced by the previous review of the literature, understanding the issue of how 

SLO assessment data are used effectively by community colleges to drive institutional 

improvement is a multifaceted task. This study seeks to understand the organizational structure 

of a particular institution and how the various levers of power are engaged to drive change. In 

order to gain a better understanding of how one institution is successfully using various facets of 

organizational power to implement the use of SLO data-driven institutional improvements, I rely 

on Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Reframing Organizations, specifically, the Four Frame Model of 

understanding organizations (see Figure 1). This model was chosen because the multifaceted 

approach lends itself to the complex nature of HEIs, which have competing groups of interests 

who must interact and work toward shared positive outcomes. In order to understand how some 

institutions are more effective at resolving their issues and advancing toward shared positive 

outcomes, it may prove helpful to examine a single institution from multiple perspectives.  

Bolman and Deal (2017) plainly state organizations are complex, surprising, deceptive, 

and ambiguous. Moreover, they are made up of people whose behaviors can be incredibly 

difficult to predict (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Because of their complexity and unpredictability, the 

authors believe organizational issues should be examined from multiple viewpoints. The authors 

refer to these viewpoints as the “four frames” and posit organizational issues can be understood 

through these distinct frames. Specifically, the authors define a frame as, “a coherent set of ideas 

33 

 
 
 
or beliefs forming a prism or lens that enables you to see and understand more clearly what’s 

going on in the world around you.” (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 42). The four frames are 

structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. In the following subsections I introduce the 

four frames and discuss ways each frame might help to advance understanding of how some 

community colleges may effectively use student learning outcome data to advance institutional 

improvement. 

Figure 1 

The Four-Frame Model 

Note. An overview of the Four-Frame Model From “Reframing Organizations: Artistry, 

Choice, and Leadership,” by Bolman & Deal, 2017, pp. 20. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
Structural Frame. 

The structural frame emphasizes organizational goals, roles, rules, and hierarchy (Rice, 

1991). Two undergirding principles of the structural frame are differentiation—who is 

responsible for what and when—and integration—how individual efforts interact to ensure  

harmony (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Understanding how complex issues, such as the sustained use 

of student learning outcome data, it will be of utmost importance to also understand the 

organizational structure of the institution in question. While structure is often seen as needless 

bureaucracy or regulation, Bolman and Deal (2017) argue if structure is overlooked 

organizations may waste time and resources in misguided efforts.  

In the context of this study, understanding the structural frame will require knowledge of 

the two main principles: differentiation or the division of labor and integration or the 

coordination of diverse efforts. Regarding division of labor, understanding who is responsible for 

things like determining assessment measures, administering and collecting SLO data, analyzing 

SLO data, communicating results, deciding upon improvement initiatives, establishing lines of 

communication to stakeholders, and defining success are all structural processes to be explored. 

Along the lines of coordinating efforts, understanding who has formal authority over goals, 

policy, and procedure; who delegates responsibility; and how and if teams are utilized are 

important organizational mechanisms to explore. The previously stated areas of differentiation 

and division of labor is not an exhaustive list, rather it is a sample of some important concepts 

within the structural frame that will need to be understood. 

Human Resource Frame. 

In the human resource frame, the emphasis is on the individuals who make up the 

organization. Organizations need people for the expertise, talent, and energy they bring, but 

35 

 
 
people also need organizations for the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards they provide (Bolman & 

Deal, 2017). In an ideal scenario the fit between the organization and the employee is a mutual 

symbiotic relationship where both parties benefit. However, there are times when this fit is not 

good in which case one or both parties suffer. What may be most relevant to this study from the 

human resources frame is the idea of intrinsic motivation. Bolman and Deal (2017) introduce 

several theories of motivation, and each of them share a common thread, which may be best 

articulated in Herzberg et al.’s (1959) two-factor theory of motivation. Herzberg et al. (1959) 

found extrinsic rewards, such as salary and working conditions, could contribute to 

dissatisfaction, but they did little to enhance satisfaction. Conversely, intrinsic rewards, like a 

sense of achievement, responsibility, and autonomy significantly contributed to satisfaction 

(Rice, 1991; Cherwin, 2013; Bolman & Deal, 2017). In practice, this frame may take the shape 

of what Bolman and Deal (2017) refer to as “high-involvement” strategies. These high-

involvement strategies may include training, empowerment of the workforce, staff development, 

teaming, diversity, and attention to the needs of the workforce (Bradbury, Halbur, & Halbur, 

2011; Bolman & Deal, 2017). 

Within the context of this study, institutions will be asked about SLO assessment 

training, incentives for being involved in the process, feelings of ownership and autonomy in the 

process, creative control, how groups and teams are created and supported, how differences of 

opinion are handled, the importance of emotional intelligence and regulation in teamwork, and 

the recognition and appreciation of work.  

Political Frame. 

According to Bolman and Deal (2017), “politics is the realistic process of making 

decisions and allocating resources in a context of scarcity and divergent interests.” (p. 178). This 

36 

 
 
pairing of scarce resources with divergent interests creates a steady stream of conflict within 

organizations, and this conflict inevitably leads to a focus on obtaining power through 

bargaining, negotiating, and the formation of coalitions (Omisore, Abiodun, 2014). Bolman and 

Deal (2017) discuss how the political frame can be used to serve personal agendas, often to the 

detriment of the organization, but they also acknowledge politics can be a force for positive 

organizational change and effectiveness as well. The tactful politician engages in four key skills: 

agenda-setting, mapping the political terrain, networking and building coalitions, and bargaining 

and negotiating (Bolman & Deal, 2017, p. 204).  

Because my study is focusing on an organization who has succeeded in reaching their 

goals pertaining to the use of SLO data, I seek to understand if and how these four political skills 

were leveraged. Some potential areas of inquiry include how and by whom the agenda (goals and 

schedule) for using SLO assessment data is developed? Was political pushback expected and if 

so, were counterstrategies developed? What role did informal communication play in navigating 

political pushback? Were there any internal or external influencers (not initially involved) called 

upon to help in the process? Were any relationships identified as key to obtaining intended 

results? How were relationships with potential opponents broached? What were key negotiations 

or bargains struck during the decision-making process? The political frame is fascinating, but 

participants may be less willing to provide honest feedback, due to the personal and informal 

nature of exercising political power. 

Symbolic Frame. 

Deriving largely from the disciplines of sociology and organizational theory, the 

symbolic or cultural frame of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) reframing organizations makes the 

argument that what is most important is not what happens, but rather what it means. This 

37 

 
 
assumption leaves room for individual interpretation of experiences, which can and often do 

differ. Organizational symbolism and or culture is created and continues to change over time, 

and is made up of values, norms, and shared beliefs, which help to create a shared sense of 

identity, purpose, and meaning (Martin, 2012). These values, norms, and shared beliefs help 

quell anxiety during times of uncertainty, and act as the tie that binds, uniting people across the 

organization to work toward shared goals (Bolman & Deal, 2017). 

As explained in Reframing Organizations (2017) organizational symbols can manifest in 

many ways, but some common forms present in HEIs are myths, vision, and values; rituals or 

ceremonies; and metaphor and humor. Myths are shared dreams, which help to encapsulate an 

organization’s values. These values act as guardrails to planning an organization’s future or 

vision (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Rituals and ceremonies are recurring organizational activities that 

carry with them meaning by putting into action the organization’s values (Martin, 2012).  

Understanding how the institution in this study relies on symbolism and culture to 

implement and sustain the use of SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality will be 

extremely important. Potential areas of inquiry for the symbolic frame include but are not limited 

to how the purpose of using SLO assessment data was established or defined? Who was integral 

in establishing the narrative of purpose? Was there any pushback or alternative narratives for this 

purpose and if so, how were those addressed? How does the use of SLO assessment data connect 

to the institution’s mission and vision, and did the mission or vision need to be changed to reflect 

this idea? Were any events or ceremonies created (i.e., assessment day for faculty), if so, how 

were these decided upon? Are any comparisons or metaphors used to help make meaning of the 

process of using SLO assessment data?  

38 

 
 
 
Integrating the Frameworks.  

While each of the four frames in Bolman and Deal’s (2017) model provides unique and 

important views from which to make sense of organizational issues, what is important to 

understand is these frames do not exist in a vacuum. Problems facing organizations, and the 

actions taken to address them, may be interpreted in different ways by different people. For 

example, Bolman and Deal (2017) provide an example of how the activity of decision making 

may be seen through the structural frame as a rational sequence to produce a correct decision; 

through the human resource frame as an open process to produce commitment; through the 

political frame as an opportunity to gain or exercise power; and through the symbolic frame as a 

ritual to confirm values and provide opportunities for bonding.  

While Bolman and Deal (2017) do not prescribe specific answers to organizational 

issues, they do suggest certain frames are matched more effectively to certain situations 

depending on the contextual conditions. For example, if individual commitment and motivation 

are essential, the human resource and symbolic frames may work best while the structural and 

political frames may not; if technical quality of the decision is important, the structural frame 

may work better and the other three may not; if high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty exist or 

if conflict and scarcity of resources are prevalent, the political and symbolic frames may work 

best, while the structural and human resource frames may not (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Bolman 

and Deal (2017) argue because organizations are complex entities with simultaneous events 

occurring, which can have multiple interpretations, in order to have a holistic view of any 

organizational issue, one must attempt to understand the issue from multiple vantage points. 

Each individual frame has the potential to provide valuable insight, but taken in isolation, each 

frame also presents possible blind spots in understanding. 

39 

 
 
Theoretical Framework: A Model of Organizational Change and Development. 

The previous section about the conceptual framework discussed how actors within an 

organization use the levers of power to implement change. While the conceptual framework 

helps provide an understanding of how organizational power structures can be used to drive 

change, it does not necessarily further our understanding of the change process specifically. In 

order to thrive in what is seen as an unprecedented time of change (Kezar, 2014), HEIs must be 

able to proactively lead change in response to both internal and external forces (Andrews, 2017). 

This process of employees working to move an organization toward intended, meaningful, and 

lasting change is considered organizational development (Ivancevich et al., 2014). Like many 

other topics discussed in this study, organizational change and development is a vast field, filled 

with many different theories. In order to understand how the community college in this study 

engaged in the change process, I will be relying on Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model of 

organizational change and development (see Figure 2) as a theoretical framework. The reason 

this model was chosen is because it looks at change in a holistic manner. Some models of change 

take a more myopic view, simply focusing on the occurrence of a given change initiative. In this 

model, special focus is put on both root causes or “forces” of change, as well as how the success 

of a given change initiative is evaluated.  

As was briefly discussed in the introduction, because community colleges are compelled 

by several external stakeholder groups to use SLO assessment data to improve institutional 

quality, part of the Ivancevich et al. (2014) model is not entirely relevant for this study. The top 

four boxes in Figure 2 are not part of my inquiry as they have already received attention within 

the context of SLO assessment. In the literature review I covered the forces for change (e.g., 

accountability and accreditation), the fact HEIs are not currently meeting expected performance 

40 

 
 
outcomes, and how accreditors and government bodies already determined both the problem and 

appropriate methods for addressing the problem. Because the first four sections of the model are 

beyond the control of the institution, this study will focus on how the institution addresses the 

remaining three sections, which are impediments and limiting conditions, implementation of the 

method, and program evaluation (Ivancevich et al., 2014). 

Figure 2 

A Model of Organizational Change 

Note. A model of organizational change and development. From “Organizational 

Behavior and Management,” by Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2014, pp. 514. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Impediments and Limiting Conditions. 

Regardless of the specific change initiative in question, the context of the organization 

will play a role in the success or failure of implementation. Ivancevich et al. (2014) outline four 

context-specific impediments to change: resistance to change, leadership climate, formal 

organization, and organizational culture. By gaining an understanding of how the proposed 

institution in this study recognized and dealt with impediments and limiting conditions when 

implementing the use of SLO data to improve quality, subsequent institutions may learn how 

they were successfully overcome. Therefore, these four context-specific impediments inform 

many of the questions asked of the participating institution. 

Resistance to change. 

Any situation involving change and uncertainty around humans’ routines and habits has 

the potential to create feelings of fear and anxiety for those involved (Grupe, & Nitschke, 2013). 

In response to anxiety about change, individuals and even the embedded structures of the 

organization have the tendency to resist. Ivancevich et al. (2014, p. 512-513) outline five 

strategies for dealing with resistance to organizational change: (a) Individuals and organizations 

must have a clear reason to change, (b) The more people involved in the change initiative at 

multiple levels of the hierarchy the higher the likelihood of success, (c) Communication must be 

an ongoing effort, (d) Identify and help guide champions or supporters of change within the 

organization, and (e) Create a learning organization that is resilient and flexible. Understanding 

if and how the proposed organization used any or all five strategies when attempting to 

overcome any resistance to change will be an important part of understanding the change 

process. 

42 

 
 
 
Leadership climate. 

The second impediment to change outlined in the Ivancevich et al. (2014, p. 527) model 

is leadership climate, which is defined as the nature of the environment created by leadership 

style and the administrative practices of managers. The authors stress buy-in from mid-level 

managers as a key component to the success of any change initiative. In terms of this study, I 

will need to understand how the decision to change was made and communicated. Finding out 

which leaders helped or hindered the change process will also be key to understanding the 

change process. 

Formal organization. 

The third possible impediment to organizational change outlined by Ivancevich et al. 

(2014, p. 528) is the formal organization, which includes the philosophy and policies of top 

management, along with legal precedent, organizational structure, and systems of control. The 

authors emphasize that a change initiative in one of the previously listed sources must be 

compatible with all other sources, or else resistance is likely to occur. In terms of this study, 

understanding where current policy and procedure may have acted as a barrier to using SLO 

assessment data in improving organizational effectiveness is important. For example, when 

existing policies and procedures were in opposition to the change, did those existing policies and 

procedures remain or were they abandoned in the name of change?  

Organizational culture. 

The final potential impediment to organizational change presented in Ivancevich et al.’s 

(2014, p. 528) model is organizational culture, which they define as the pattern of beliefs based 

on group norms, values, and informal activities. Ensuring that any change initiative implemented 

considers how it could react with the prevailing cultural conditions within the organization is an 

43 

 
 
important aspect of the change process. Understanding how the culture of the organization may 

act as a barrier to change may prove to be difficult because organizational culture is based on 

employees’ perceptions and how those perceptions manifest in beliefs, values, and expectations 

(Ivancevich et al., 2014, p. 39). Because understanding individuals’ perceptions is difficult, 

overtly asking participants about their perceptions of the organizational culture, and how those 

perceptions may have informed their behavior during the change process is necessary. While no 

two institutions are the same, I believe any community college trying to implement the use of 

SLO assessment data to improve institutional effectiveness will see similar impediments to 

change. My hope is by clearly articulating how the institution in this study addressed and 

overcame these four categories of impediments, subsequent institutions will be able to draw 

parallels and overcome these impediments in similar ways. 

Implementing the Method. 

Understanding how the proposed institution completed the second part of Ivancevich et 

al.’s (2014) model, implementing the method, will be another important detail for subsequent 

institutions to learn from. When implementing the change process Ivancevich et al. (2014, p. 

528-529) suggest focusing on the dimensions of timing and scope. The timing for engaging in a 

change initiative should depend on the groundwork that has—or has not—been laid for the 

initiative as well as the operating cycle of the organization. Therefore, beginning a change 

initiative right before a particularly busy period for the organization would not make sense. 

Understanding how the timing for implementation was decided upon by decision-makers will be 

another important line of inquiry for this study. For example, knowing how the timeline and, 

specifically, the start date of the initiative was developed, and what considerations went into 

planning the timeline will be critical. 

44 

 
 
The scope of change refers to the scale at which the initiative will reach. Organizations 

must consider if the change initiative will be implemented throughout the entirety, or if it will be 

phased into smaller organizational units. Organizations implementing a change initiative should 

do so by introducing the change into successive small-scale units where the organization can 

learn from mistakes and experiment with variations of the intervention (Ivancevich et al., p. 528). 

Another important aspect of scope is the potential of experiencing scope creep. Scope creep 

refers to changes made to original goals, often to satisfy stakeholders, which may result in 

substantial changes to the initiative (Mikkelsen, 2018). For this study, I seek to discover how the 

scope of the change initiative was determined and carried out. Also, regarding scope, I examine 

whether the phenomena of scope creep was an issue for this change initiative, and if it was an 

issue, how it was dealt with by the organization. 

Program Evaluation. 

The final section of Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model of organizational change and 

development is the program evaluation phase. While organizations must identify change to be 

made and follow through with implementing the change, the organizational change and 

development process does not end there. After implementing a change initiative, organizations 

must gather feedback in the form of data to measure the desired result. After initial feedback is 

gathered, organizations must determine if the desired results were obtained, and if not, what 

adjustments must be made to move toward the desired result. Revisions to the change initiative 

are then implemented and reinforced in subsequent iterations. Understanding how and when 

success was defined for the community college in this study will be another very important 

source of information.  

45 

 
 
 
Working Hypothesis  

Examining how the community college in this study managed to implement and sustain 

the use of SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality will yield evidence of influence 

from both Bolman and Deal’s (2017) reframing organizations and Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) 

model of organizational change and development. This evidence will likely show elements of the 

frameworks either acting to enable or as a barrier to using SLO assessment data to improve 

institutional quality. I hypothesize the community college in this study will show evidence of 

purposeful integration of some or all of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames when enacting 

their SLO assessment change initiative. I also hypothesize data will show an understanding 

amongst assessment leaders—either stated or implied—of the three distinct phases of 

organizational change and development in Ivancevich et al. (2014) model of organizational 

change and development. While the particular community college and their key assessment 

leaders may not use the exact language from both frameworks, I predict they will exhibit an 

understanding that the issue of using SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality is best 

approached by integrating strategies from multiple frames. 

Summary 

I began this section with the goal of clarifying some key terms from the assessment 

literature—accountability, accreditation, and assessment—which are often convoluted. When 

defining what is meant by assessment, particular focus was emphasized on the form and function 

of the assessment process. The use of SLO assessment data was discussed with particular focus 

on the questions of why institutions are using SLO assessment data, and what does it look like 

for an institution to use SLO assessment data? While existing literature focuses on the why and 

what questions of using SLO assessment data, not much information exists on specifically how 

46 

 
 
 
community colleges successfully implement and sustain policies and practices for using SLO 

assessment data to improve institutional quality. Of the literature that does exist on the questions 

of how to use SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality, much of it is general and not 

extremely clear on how to specifically enact the advice, or what Argyris (2000) terms 

unactionable advice. Lastly, the conceptual and theoretical frameworks were discussed, and it 

was explained how the four distinct frames along with the model for organizational change and 

development provide unique yet integrated lines of inquiry for understanding how institutions 

successfully use SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality. 

47 

 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 3: METHODS 

The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of how a particular community 

college successfully uses SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality. The goal of the 

following chapter is to establish the methodological means for carrying out the study, along with 

providing a justification for why the methods were chosen. Specifically, I will discuss the 

research paradigm, research design, limitations, and my positionality as a researcher with 

personal connections to the study. 

Research Paradigm and Methodology 

The concept of community colleges using SLO assessment data to improve institutional 

quality is a fairly new one (Kuh et al., 2015; Blaich & Wise, 2011; Kuh et al., 2014). When 

dealing with a new phenomenon, researchers must make informed decisions on the most 

appropriate research paradigm and subsequent methodology (van Esch, & van Esch, 2013). The 

subject matter in this research, community college organizations and how they change, is quite 

subjective. Due to the subjective nature of the phenomenon in this study, I believe the 

appropriate research paradigm in this case is interpretive. Interpretivism begins with human 

interpretation as a starting point for developing knowledge about the social world (Prasad, 2005). 

The intent of interpretivist work is to understand how people feel, perceive, and experience the 

social world, with the goal of gaining meaning and motivation for individuals’ behaviors (Chen, 

Shek, & Bu, 2011). Understanding the perceptions and motivations driving individual behavior 

is important because the world is complex and ever-changing, and by framing studies through an 

interpretive lens, researchers begin to understand how the same phenomenon can be viewed 

differently by various individuals involved (Glesne, 2011). I want to make clear that with this 

study I am not merely seeking to find out what actions took place, when they took place, how 

48 

 
 
 
they took place, and what the result was. Rather, with this interpretivist methodology I am trying 

to discover the untold and sometimes counter-narratives behind this process. By seeking each 

participants’ unique interpretation of how this initiative was undertaken, I hope to gain a more 

holistic understanding of how this institution successfully grappled with this SLO assessment 

initiative.  

 Qualitative methodology is often used when conducting interpretivist research because it 

can provide rich and contextualized explanations of complex social phenomena (Thomas, 2003; 

Willis, 2007). This research seeks to explain the context by which a particular community 

college experiences a complex social phenomenon (i.e., using SLO assessment data to change 

and improve institutional effectiveness). Based on the fact this study is being framed within an 

interpretivist paradigm, qualitative research methodology is the most appropriate means of data 

collection and analysis. 

Research Design 

Again, the central problem this study aims to address is the fact that, while they are 

compelled to do so, not many community colleges are effectively using SLO assessment data to 

improve institutional quality. Because there are not many examples of institutions doing this in 

practice, and because the literature around using SLO assessment data to inform practice is also 

scarce, I feel it is most useful to attempt to gain a deep understanding of an institution who is 

using SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality successfully.  

Case Study 

According to Yin (2009), when determining a methodological approach, one should 

consider the following three conditions: (a) the type of research question, (b) the control a 

researcher has over the events, and (c) the focus on contemporary versus historical phenomena. 

49 

 
 
 
The research question in this study focuses on the question of how a particularly successful 

community college uses SLO data to improve institutional quality. According to Yin (2009), the 

question of how is best studied using case study. As for the control I have over the events in 

question, because this study is examining events an institution has already experienced, I have no 

control over those events. Yin (2009) would, again, suggest case study when a researcher has no 

control. Lastly, the use of SLO data to improve institutional quality is a very contemporary issue, 

for which Yin (2009) also suggests the use of case study. The answers to Yin’s (2009) three 

questions all suggest an exploratory case study research design is most appropriate.  

An exploratory case study investigates phenomena, which are characterized by a lack of 

existing research, and that is precisely what Hamill (2015) says is the current situation around the 

topic of using SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality. Case studies can illuminate 

both the uniqueness and commonalities of a given situation (Stake, 1995), therefore, by gaining a 

deep understanding of how the process of using SLO assessment data to improve institutional 

quality is being done successfully at one community college, other community colleges may 

learn from these successes. 

Single-Case vs. Multiple-Case Study 

There are many factors to consider when designing a case study, but one fundamental 

consideration is the number of cases to be considered. There are pros and cons to both single and 

multiple-case study designs, and determining which design is best requires a consideration of 

multiple factors. For this study, one major factor in settling on a single-case study design was the 

fact that there are few community colleges who are known to be successfully using SLO 

assessment data to improve institutional quality, so finding multiple cases would have been a big 

challenge. A second reason for choosing a single-case study design is because this design is 

50 

 
 
 
better than multiple-case design when studying groups of people, which is what an institution 

(e.g., a community college) is (Gustafsson, 2017).  

Unit of Analysis 

Another crucial step in qualitative research is determining the unit of analysis. According 

to Yin (2009), the unit of analysis will be evident after the research question or questions are 

determined. The overarching research question in this study is, “how did one particularly 

successful community college implement and sustain the use of SLO assessment data to improve 

institutional quality?” Based on this question, the primary unit of analysis for this study is the 

institution. However, institutions themselves are not necessarily operative, rather, individuals 

making up the institutions are what determine success or failure. Because the institution is not a 

sentient being, it is necessary to consider sub-units of analysis including relationships between 

members of the assessment committee and individual experiences. The exploration of sub-units 

of analysis along with the global unit (i.e., the institution) is what Yin (2009) refers to as an 

embedded case study. While overarching conclusions are drawn regarding the institution, it is 

important to understand how individuals worked in collaboration to produce successful 

institutional outcomes. For this study, there could be multiple sub-units of analysis (e.g., 

departments or committees), and depending on the sub-unit chosen, a completely different study 

would emerge. I have made the conscious decision to use individuals as the sub-unit of analysis. 

I recognize that I am not accounting for potentially powerful motivating forces at other various 

sub-units but addressing all other possible sub-units of analysis is beyond the scope of this study. 

Site Selection and Sample 

In this study the population from which to sample included all community colleges in the 

United States who are currently using SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality. 

51 

 
 
Purposive sampling is a common technique used in qualitative research to identify information-

rich examples where participants are particularly knowledgeable about a phenomenon of interest 

(Patton, 2002; Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Specifically, the purposive sampling technique I 

use is intensity sampling, which involves drawing on rich examples of the phenomenon, which 

are not necessarily unusual cases (Patton, 2002). While generalizability is not always the 

intended goal of qualitative research, I preferred to find an institution that was not an extreme 

outlier in terms of size, program offerings, or mission. I determined the selected institution 

should be public because it is typically the case that public institutions provide a wider array of 

program offerings. As far as institution size, the institution’s enrollment should be close to the 

average for public community colleges in the U.S., which according to the Community College 

Review as of 2023 was 5,655 students (“Average Community College Student Size”, n.d.). 

Regarding program offerings, along with career and technical programs, the community college 

selected had to have a broad selection of general education programs. Also, the institution’s 

mission must explicitly include student learning as one of its intended goals. Lastly, the 

institution for this study had to be recognized within the field of higher education as a leader in 

SLO assessment practices. To establish this criterion, I relied on the National Institute for 

Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). NILOA has great cachet within the field of higher 

education and holds strategic partnerships with every regional accreditation organization as well 

as many other important organizations (e.g., American Council on Education, Association of 

American Universities, American Association of Community Colleges, Association of Public 

Land-grant Universities, Association of American Colleges & Universities, State Higher 

Education Executive Officers Association) (Partner and Collaborating Organizations, n.d.). 

NILOA recently developed the Excellence in Assessment (EIA) designation, which is awarded 

52 

 
 
annually to institutions who, “successfully integrate assessment practices throughout the 

institution, provide evidence of student learning outcomes, and use assessment results to guide 

institutional decision-making and improve student performance.” (Excellence in Assessment, 

n.d.). The participating community college was selected from the group of community colleges 

who have received this designation since its inception in 2016, and who fulfilled the additional 

criteria previously mentioned. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

Data Collection. 

After an institution was selected, I began the process of collecting data. Because the 

current study is interpretivist, which seeks to understand individuals’ subjective experience, the 

second means of data collection was participant interviews. Oltmann (2016) claims interviews 

are the most direct interaction between the researcher and participant, and the best way to gain 

another person’s perspective, which is why interviews will be such an integral part of this study. 

I decided to start with 7 participants for interviews, with the possibility of interviewing more if 

they were able to produce pertinent information. Participants were then selected based on 

consultation with the head of the assessment committee. I made it clear to the committee chair I 

was looking to gain perspective from individuals who could speak to both the successes of this 

initiative as well as the shortcomings.  

 Before conducting any of the interviews, I crafted a semi-structured interview protocol. 

The protocol included several general guiding questions meant to get the participant thinking 

about the key challenges to and catalysts for success. The questions also focused on Bolman and 

Deal’s (2017) four frames (see Appendix A). Pilot testing was conducted with a few assessment 

coworkers at my home institution to help bolster validity and ensure the usefulness of the 

53 

 
 
 
protocol. The piloting process proved to be a useful exercise and led to several changes in the 

wording of the questions to address ambiguity.  

Once pilot testing was complete, I moved on to the actual participant interviews. 

Participants for the interviews included faculty, staff, and administrators involved in the 

development and implementation of the SLO assessment process. Interviews were roughly one-

hour in length, and I asked participants to tell their story of how the college successfully 

implemented and sustained the use of SLO assessment data in the institutional improvement 

process. By asking such a broad question in the beginning, participants were free to highlight 

what they felt were the most important factors in carrying out this initiative. Also, I asked 

probing follow up questions along with questions from the interview protocol as needed. 

Microsoft Teams software was used to transcribe the audio of all interviews conducted.  

Data Analysis.  

When analyzing data collected in the participant interviews, I relied on interpretive 

content analysis, which is defined as, “making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or 

other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 18). This 

methodology differs slightly from basic content analysis in the sense that basic content analysis 

uses deductive coding categories, relies on literal coding, and pays little attention to context or 

meaning making (Drisko & Maschi, 2016). Interpretive content analysis is neither merely literal 

nor descriptive, allowing researchers to seek both precursors and consequences of interactions, 

from which a holistic understanding of cause and effect along with the explicit content of the 

interactions may be gained (Drisko & Maschi, 2016). However, with this interpretation comes 

possible threats to reliability, which require extra methodological rigor (Baxter, 1991). Based on 

Drisko and Maschi’s (2016) methodological suggestions, the analysis of interview data began 

54 

 
 
with generating exploratory or emergent codes based on the content of the data and with special 

consideration to its meaning in context. A code list of relevant topics was then developed from 

these emergent codes. Several of Saldaña’s (2013) coding methods were considered in first cycle 

coding including grammatical, elemental, and affective methods. After first-cycle coding was 

completed, I conducted code-mapping as a means of organizing the data as well as a data 

auditing process. Lastly, I conducted second-cycle coding methods including focused coding, 

axial coding, and theoretical coding. Focused coding takes what was broken down in first cycle 

coding and fits it together in large categories of data that make the most analytic sense (Charmaz, 

2006). The next step in the second cycle coding process is axial coding, which helps to remove 

redundancies in codes and to expound upon properties and dimensions of more dominant coding 

categories (Saldaña, 2013). The final phase of second cycle coding is called theoretical coding. 

Theoretical code acts as a metaphorical spine integrating the “core category” to the rest of the 

categories of codes by specifying possible relationships between them and establishing a 

narrative theoretical direction (Saldaña, 2013). To help with organizing the coding process, I will 

be relying on NVivo software. 

Criteria for Research Quality 

In the field of academic research, qualitative, particularly interpretive qualitative works, 

often come under intense scrutiny surrounding the reliability and validity of their methodological 

practices. To effectively address methodological concerns all researchers should address five 

criteria of trustworthiness in qualitative research including credibility, transferability, 

dependability, confirmability, and reflexivity (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). This section will 

address each of these five criteria of research quality in detail. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
Credibility 

Credibility in qualitative research can be equated with internal validity for quantitative 

research, in the sense that both address the basic question, “is the study measuring what it 

purports to be measuring” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)? To address this concern, I rely on member-

checking and peer review. Member checking is a method for establishing credibility in 

qualitative research, in which the researcher feeds back data, analytical categories, interpretations 

and conclusions to participants to check for accuracy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Sim & Sharp, 

1998). I engaged in member checking at two distinct points of the study. First, I sent all 

transcripts of interviews back to each participant for them to ensure accuracy. Second, I sent my 

list of coded themes to participants to, again, ensure accuracy. Lastly, I have asked one of my 

Ph.D. classmates to act as a peer debriefer for this study. This person acted as an outside source 

to critique and question the appropriateness of all aspects of this research. 

Transferability 

The goal of qualitative research in general, and of this study in specific, is not necessarily 

to generalize the findings to all other community colleges. However, I would like to maximize 

the possibility for other institutions to benefit from this undertaking, and because of this I will be 

looking to enhance the transferability of the study. Transferability is defined as, “the degree to 

which the results of qualitative research can be transferred to other contexts or settings with other 

respondents” (Korstjens & Moser, 2018, p. 121). Transferability can be obtained by using thick 

descriptions, which includes not only detailed descriptions of behaviors and experience, but also 

of context, so the behaviors and experiences become more meaningful to the readers (Lincoln & 

Guba, 1985; Sim & Sharp, 1998). By accurately transcribing interviews and engaging in member 

56 

 
 
 
 
checking, I am confident I have attained these thick descriptions of behaviors and experiences of 

participants in this study.  

Dependability and Confirmability 

Because the next two criteria for trustworthiness of qualitative research are so closely 

aligned and addressed through similar means, I address both in the same section. Dependability 

involves the idea of consistency and is addressed through adhering to accepted standards of 

methodological design, while confirmability is centered around researcher neutrality and is 

gained through adhering to the process of data analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Both of these 

ideas are addressed through keeping a precise audit trail during the research process, which will 

include strict documentation of procedures, interviews, and decisions made during data 

collection and analysis procedures (Imel, Kerka, & Wonacott, 2002; Merriam, 2002; Yin, 2009). 

I journaled my actions during the data collection and analysis process which included 

contemporaneous field memos to ensure the dependability and confirmability of this research. 

Reflexivity 

 The fifth and final criteria for trustworthiness of qualitative research is reflexivity, which 

is the process of critically reflecting upon one’s own bias, and relationship to respondents and to 

the research as a whole (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As a researcher I am not separate and apart 

from my study, rather I am in and of the study. It is possible my views shifted based on my 

exposure to and increased understanding of the topic at hand. To account for this, I reflected on 

my positionality (see positionality statement) and kept a reflective journal during the data 

collection and analysis procedures to account for the evolution of my views during this study.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Limitations 

In my opinion, there is no such thing as perfect research. Even in studies with extreme 

methodological rigor, biases—both implicit and explicit—can creep into and shape the outcome 

of the project. While I am doing my best to limit the potential bias involved in this study, I feel it 

is best to address areas where these biases are likely to be found. One area of particular concern 

was the selection of interview participants. The primary contact for this research was the 

administrator in charge of assessment at the selected institution, and I relied on this person to 

point out the handful of individuals who were most influential in implementing the use of SLO 

assessment data to inform institutional improvement. Both my theoretical and conceptual 

frameworks (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Ivancevich et al., 2014) posit with any organizational 

change initiative—in this case implementing the use of SLO assessment data to inform 

institutional improvement—comes impediments or barriers to the successful implementation of 

the change. I worry the participants chosen for me may have had views closely in line with the 

assessment administrator and may not have been as able or willing to discuss the barriers to 

implementing the use of SLO assessment data to improve institutional quality. To address this 

limitation, I was transparent with the assessment administrator from the beginning by stressing 

the importance of understanding how the barriers to change were overcome. 

A second limitation of this study comes from single-case study methodology. While I 

have established the rationale for why a single-case study was chosen in the research design 

section of this paper, single-case studies are not perfect. Herriott and Firestone (1983) claim 

evidence from multiple case studies is often more compelling. I acknowledge the inherent 

limitation of the single-case study methodology and see this study as a starting point, from 

which, future multiple-case study research. 

58 

 
 
Positionality 

I believe attempting to completely remove all personal influence from research, be it 

qualitative or quantitative, is patently impossible. Instead of trying to excise my personal 

experiences, views, and values from this study, I attempted to openly state and embrace them, for 

as Denzin (1986) stated, “Interpretive research begins and ends with the biography and self of 

the researcher.” (p. 12). This section is meant to discuss some aspects of my life that help inform 

my direction as a researcher. 

One aspect of my life that has informed my positionality has been my educational 

journey as a student. While the entirety of my experience in higher education has been in social 

science, both my bachelor’s and master’s degrees were steeped in positivist epistemology. I did 

not realize it at the time—typical of many individuals of a majority group—but opposing views 

on the nature of knowledge and experience were waiting for me to discover them. During the 

first semester of study in my doctoral degree I realized how subjective, even the most 

scientifically rigorous research can be. My belief that the same reality and mechanism for 

knowledge creation exists for everyone and can be quantified, analyzed, predicted and repeated 

began to waver after reading Sipe and Consable (1996). Since then, I have become more 

comfortable with the fact each of us experiences the world and gains knowledge differently 

based on our own personal journeys. 

A second influence on this research is the fact that I currently work for a community 

college both as an instructor and as a coordinator for assessment efforts. Like many others in 

higher education, the institution I work for is not yet where we need to be in terms of using SLO 

data to inform practice. The relevance of this challenge is part of why I was drawn to this topic. I 

believe if done carefully, assessing SLOs can have a positive impact on institutional quality, 

59 

 
 
however, I do not believe that simply engaging in more student assessment is a magic elixir to 

heal all that ails the field of higher education. I hope my personal experience in both the subject 

of SLO assessment and the community college sector will help me to gain a more holistic 

perspective of how community colleges can use SLO data to improve institutional quality. 

Summary 

Chapter 3 provided an overview of the methodological considerations for this project. 

Specifically, I discussed the research paradigm, research design, data collection and analysis, and 

data quality assurance. Also addressed in Chapter 3 were some of the limitations for this study. 

Lastly, I address the issue of researcher positionality in an effort to openly state and 

contextualize my personal biases that will undoubtedly influence this work. 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 4: BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

The intent of Chapter 4 is to provide critical background information on the institution at 

the center of this case study in order to build the necessary context for understanding and 

interpreting the subsequent data analysis and conclusions. In order to protect the anonymity of 

the institution and the participants of this study, I have chosen to use the pseudonym Greenville 

Community College (GCC) for the institution. The specific name of the state system of higher 

education will be anonymized and referred to as SHES. The regional accreditor for this 

institution–Middle States Commission on Higher Education–is far enough removed from GCC, 

so it will be referred to as MSCHE. Lastly, the institutional demographic statistics presented in 

this section will not be exact numbers. I chose to approximate numbers to further protect the 

anonymity of GCC. There are three major sections of Chapter 4: first, is an overview of the 

institution; second is a description of the participants and their roles at the institution; and third is 

an interpretation of why and how GCC chose to recast assessment and get to a point where they 

use SLO assessment data to drive institutional improvement. 

Institutional Overview 

As was mentioned in the Site Selection and Sample section of Chapter 3, I tried to be 

intentional in selecting the institution for this case study. The goal was to find an institution that 

excels in the use of student learning outcome data as evidenced by their NILOA distinction, but 

also represents an “average” community college in terms of enrollment, program offerings, and 

mission. While the intent of this study is not necessarily to be generalizable, it might be helpful 

for readers and practitioners to be able to find some commonalities between the institution being 

studied and other institutions going through similar issues. 

61 

 
 
 
 
Based on the selection criteria mentioned in the previous paragraph and outlined in 

greater detail in Chapter 3, I chose to perform this single case study at Greenville Community 

College (GCC). Permission to use GCC in my study was granted after I initially reached out to 

my informant through email. Located in the eastern United States, GCC falls under the Carnegie 

Classification of Associate’s Colleges: High Transfer-High Nontraditional and as of fall 2020, 

was home to between 4,000-7,000 students (Carnegie Classification, n.d.). GCC offers 

Associate-level degrees or undergraduate Certificates in between 50-80 different programs with 

the most popular programs being Liberal Arts and Sciences-Associate’s Degree, Business 

Administration-Associate’s Degree, and Registered Nursing-Associate’s Degree (U.S. 

Department of Education, n.d.). 

Participant Overview 

Interviews were conducted with seven participants who were either currently or formerly 

employees of GCC and who had extensive knowledge and experience with the initiative to use 

SLO data to improve institutional quality. The participants came from varied departments on 

campus and included faculty members of various disciplines, academic administrators, academic 

support staff, and assessment coaches. The assessment coaches were all faculty members from 

various disciplines as well, but had decreased teaching loads to allow them to also take on the 

role of assessment coaches. Because some of what was divulged during the interview process 

was potentially personal and sensitive information, each participant was given a pseudonym to 

help protect their identity. 

Luke 

During his time at GCC, Luke worked as a faculty member and was eventually promoted 

to Associate Vice President. When asked about his role as Associate Vice President, Luke said, 

62 

 
 
 
Associate Vice Presidents are in charge of lots of things, but my main sphere of control 

was curriculum. I was in charge of the curriculum for the college. From developing 

courses, packaging them into programs, and then getting them through our governance 

system, and getting them approved by the state Department of Ed, and then implementing 

all of the changes. 

Recently, Luke left GCC to pursue another opportunity in education, but was still very 

knowledgeable about all of the efforts made to improve assessment at the institution.  

Mary 

Mary was hired at GCC in a dual role acting as the Assessment Coordinator as well as a 

faculty member. Mary, hired in 2013, has earned several promotions and currently holds the 

position of Vice President of Strategic Initiatives and Assessment. Mary proved to be an integral 

part of why GCC was able to initiate and sustain the effort to measure and use SLO data for 

institutional improvement. When asked if any individuals stuck out as important to the success of 

this assessment initiative, one participant said, “I think I would attribute a lot of the success to 

Mary. She is one of the smartest people I’ve ever met.” 

Mark 

Recently hired to the full-time position of Assessment and Academic Data Coordinator, 

Mark had been working with the assessment team at GCC as a contract employee for several 

years prior. His position is to play a supporting and organizing role for all assessment related 

activities with a particular focus on data curation. While his experience was somewhat limited 

compared to many of the other participants, his deep technical knowledge was very helpful in 

understanding specifically how data are collected, stored, and used to aid in strategic decision 

making around assessment of SLOs. 

63 

 
 
 
Hannah 

Hannah is a mid-career faculty member at GCC who teaches in the Visual and 

Performing Arts department. Hanna’s opinion was of particular importance to this project 

because, unlike most of the other participants, she was not necessarily an early adopter nor was 

she a cheerleader for this initiative. Her initial skepticism turned into pragmatism as it became 

more evident that this SLO assessment initiative was something that GCC was obligated to do. 

“We value governance very much and we respect the process of governance, whether or not we 

always agree with the outcomes. So even if the outcome comes from a contentious vote, we're 

going to follow the flow of governance.” Due to her pragmatic stance, Hannah was often a key 

negotiator between assessment staff and members of the Visual and Performing Arts department 

during the implementation of the SLO assessment initiative, which made her a rich source of 

data. 

Beth 

Beth is another mid-career faculty member in the Science and Technology department. 

After starting her career in K-12 education, Beth was very aware of SLO assessment by the time 

she got to GCC. Pertaining to assessment, Beth explained,  

In graduate school I had an opportunity to compare standardized testing, high stakes, 

testing, summative and formative assessment in my own classroom, and learn how to 

develop that kind of thing, which is not, I think, typical for most college faculty outside 

of an education department. 

Because of this previous experience with SLO assessment, Beth understood the need for SLO 

data to inform institutional improvement decisions, which made her an early adopter for this 

initiative and another great source of data. 

64 

 
 
 
 
Susan 

Along the same lines as Beth, Susan is a mid-career faculty member in the English 

Department at GCC. Also like Beth, Susan was an early and eager adopter of the SLO 

assessment initiative. Susan was able to see the big picture behind SLO assessment and 

understood that this initiative could be seen as an opportunity for faculty to take more of an 

active role in institutional decision making. “You know we need to take the power back and like 

actually do something more than checkboxes.” This attitude helped Susan become one of the 

driving forces behind GCC’s success in SLO assessment. 

Jenny 

An assistant professor within the Environmental Conservation and Horticulture 

department for the last 7 years, Jenny joined GCC after the institution had decided to make a 

commitment to using SLO data to drive decision making. Realizing SLO assessment was going 

to become a more substantial part of her job, Jenny helped lead the push to implement program 

coordinators within the department of Environmental Conservation and Horticulture. With the 

help of other stakeholders, Jenny lobbied for release time to be granted to these new program 

coordinators, in part, to work on the SLO assessment initiative. Being one of the only 

departments at GCC that did not have program coordinators, the approval of this request went 

smoothly. “The process was really just a matter of trying to make our department match what 

other departments had.” The extra time to focus on SLO assessment, which Jenny helped to 

secure, was an important factor in the department’s success. 

Recasting Assessment at GCC 

The decision for GCC to hone their focus on SLO assessment and making data-backed 

decisions was not made out of the blue, and it was not made completely by choice. There were 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
several factors that led to the “recasting” of assessment—as Mary put it—including forces both 

internal and external to GCC. Internally, there was a palpable frustration amongst faculty with 

the status quo around institutional assessment practices. Speaking to this frustration, Beth said, 

When I first came here in 2008 and for some time after that, there was a lot of talk about 

assessment, but nothing happened. When we did get together for assessment, it was 

usually last minute and we would talk a little bit and we'd be like, this is great. We would 

talk about student work and what we're all doing in our classroom and say, ‘we should do 

this more,’ but it would end there. And then three years later, we would do the same 

thing. It just seemed like we were checking a box for accreditation. 

Several other participants offered similar sentiment when discussing how assessment had 

traditionally been handled at GCC. 

Externally, GCC accreditors, SHES and MSCHE were mandating the institution to 

address several issues, and one of the common sense ways these issues could be addressed was 

through more rigorous assessment. The first external issue GCC needed to address quickly was 

getting into compliance with SHE’s 64 credit rule, which stated no Associate’s programs could 

require more than 64 credits (State Higher Education System, n.d.). According to Mary, GCC 

had the most degrees out of compliance in the entire SHES, so the institution was bracing for a 

massive amount of work. The second source of external pressure was GCC’s 2012 accreditation 

findings, which highlighted a lack of assessment of institutional learning outcomes, specifically 

pertaining to general education goals. Starting her tenure as Assessment Coordinator in the 

middle of the chaos from the 64 credit rule and the 2012 accreditation findings, Mary came to the 

conclusion there needed to be a singular solution to these curricular and assessment issues faced 

by the institution. 

66 

 
 
After much discussion between Mary, Luke, and other stakeholders, the beginnings of a 

unified solution to the internal and external pressures facing GCC began to emerge and it was 

referred to as the Learning Framework.  Luke recalled, “I and Mary created the Learning 

Framework as a brainstorm in her office one night, and then we just started sketching it out.” The 

result of this brainstorm session was a graphic representation of how GCC’s curriculum and 

assessment could fit together and compliment one another. The formal adoption of the Learning 

Framework took place with a vote in GCC’s Academic Senate and it set into motion the creation 

of all new general education and course learning outcomes, which is how GCC got from a point 

of crisis in 2012 to earning NILOA’s Excellence in Assessment designation for their progress in 

using SLO data to make institutional improvements.  

Summary 

Chapter 4 provided the institutional context necessary for understanding and interpreting 

the remainder of this study. Three distinct sections of background information were covered, 

including an institutional overview, a description of the participants and their roles within the 

institution, and an interpretation of why and how GCC recast SLO assessment practices allowing 

them to get to where they are today. Chapter 4 built the necessary context for understanding and 

interpreting the subsequent data analysis and conclusions.  

67 

 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS & THE FOUR FRAMES WORKING IN ISOLATION 

The focus of this dissertation was to understand the process by which a community 

college came to use SLO data to make institutional improvements. This chapter explores this 

process by analyzing participant descriptions of their experiences implementing the use of SLO 

assessment data to improve institutional quality through the lenses of both Bolman and Deal’s 

(2017) four frames and Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model of organizational change. However, 

before delving into evidence of Bolman and Deal (2017) and Ivancevich et al., (2014), I take 

time to discuss the portions of the Ivancevich et al., (2014) model that are not pertinent to this 

study in an attempt to provide the full context of this change initiative. The remainder of this 

chapter discusses how the four frames (i.e., structural, human resource, political, and symbolic) 

are represented in the participant experiences and how these frames acted in isolation as 

individual levers of institutional change to address what Ivancevich et al. (2014) refer to as 

impediments to change. To be clear, when a theme is stated as an impediment to change, it does 

not mean it is inherently bad or useless for an institution to engage in the described activity. For 

example, Ivancevich et al. (2014) list the formal organization and organizational culture as two 

examples of impediments to organizational change. By listing the formal organization and 

organizational culture as examples they are not implying these two aspects of an organization are 

automatically impediments to organizational change. Rather, they seem to be saying the formal 

organization and organizational culture are common aspects of an organization from which 

impediments to change may arise. The themes under the headings labeled challenges provide 

evidence described by participants as areas GCC could have been more strategic about. The 

themes under the headings labeled successes provide evidence described by participants as areas 

GCC was successful in the implementation from the start. Finally, I present evidence from 

68 

 
 
 
participant interviews of GCC addressing the key components of implementing the method 

portion of Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model (i.e., timing, scope, and experimentation). 

Excluded Elements of Ivancevich et al., (2014) Model 

One important issue must be addressed before presenting the results of the study. 

Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model outlines seven steps in a successful organizational change. I 

argue the first four steps in this model are beyond the control of HEIs in the case of SLO 

assessment. Also, while the last step—program evaluation—is relevant for SLO assessment 

changes, this change is so new, even for GCC, that there was no data to collect on this step in the 

organizational change process. While I believe these steps in the model are not as relevant to this 

study, it is worth discussing them briefly to add context and provide a rationale for why they are 

not included in this study. 

Forces for Change 

Colleges and universities have increasingly been expected to use SLO data to inform 

institutional improvement. However, the extent to which institutions can autonomously enact 

change is often constrained by external forces. Ivancevich et al. (2014) identify both external and 

internal forces that drive organizational change. In the specific context of higher education, 

external forces (i.e., economic pressures, technological advancements, and socio-political shifts) 

exert significant influence over institutional decision making. Accrediting bodies and 

policymakers act as gatekeepers of change by determining the metrics of institutional success 

and the acceptable parameters for improvement efforts. For example, federal and state funding 

policies increasingly tie financial support to student performance indicators such as graduation 

rate, retention, and employment outcomes (Kelchen, 2018). These external forces establish the 

69 

 
 
 
priorities for institutional assessment and improvement efforts, often limiting the scope for HEIs 

to define their own strategic changes and subsequent success measures. 

Performance Outcomes 

The second stage of the Ivancevich et al., (2014) model involves performance outcomes 

at the organizational, group, and individual levels. In higher education, these outcomes are 

largely dictated by accreditors, who establish the benchmarks institutions must meet to maintain 

their status. Regional accreditors require institutions to demonstrate evidence of student learning 

and continuous improvement (Ewell, 2009). Because accreditation is essential for eligibility for 

federal financial aid, institutions have little choice but to align their performance outcomes with 

these externally determined criteria (Banda & Blaich, 2011). Consequently, colleges cannot fully 

control how they define or measure success, as these are largely imposed upon them. 

Diagnosis of the Problem 

According to Ivancevich et al., (2014), organizations must diagnose the problem by 

gathering information, engaging in participatory assessment, and involving change agents. In 

higher education, however, the diagnosis of student learning issues is often pre-determined by 

external mandates. Accreditors require institutions to engage in assessment processes that 

prioritize certain forms of data collection, such as standardized learning outcomes assessment or 

institutional effectiveness reporting. While institutions may have some discretion in interpreting 

data, they must ultimately align their diagnoses with accreditor expectations. Similarly, state and 

federal policymakers influence problem identification by emphasizing workforce readiness, 

equity gaps, and degree completion rates as key areas of concern (Lederman, 2015). Thus, 

colleges operate within a constrained framework where the problems requiring attention are 

predetermined. 

70 

 
 
 
Selection of the Appropriate Method 

The final step in the top portion of Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model involves selecting 

appropriate methods for addressing identified issues. While institutions technically have 

autonomy in choosing intervention strategies, their choices are constrained by the priorities set 

by external agencies. For example, many accreditors require institutions to adopt specific tools, 

such as VALUE rubrics from the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) or 

standardized tests like the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) (Jankowski & Marshall, 

2017). Additionally, policymakers at the state level may mandate performance-based funding 

models that incentivize particular interventions, such as guided pathways initiatives or 

competency-based education programs (Dougherty & Reddy, 2013). As a result, institutions are 

often constrained to a narrow set of acceptable change strategies rather than having the freedom 

to develop context-specific solutions. 

Program Evaluation 

 Ivancevich et al., (2014) outline feedback, adjustment, revision, and reinforcement as 

methods for engaging in program evaluation. While program evaluation as a key component of 

the model for organizational change and development, and is relevant to GCC, there is a lack of 

data provided by GCC on this portion of the model. It is not to say GCC is not engaging in 

efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of their change initiative, rather, the changes they have 

implemented were very new. GCC was early in the process of using SLO data to inform decision 

making at the time of data collection and had not yet implemented mechanisms for evaluating 

the effectiveness of their new SLO assessment policies. Therefore, the data presented in the 

results section of this study is limited to the impediments and limiting conditions and 

71 

 
 
 
implementation of the method portions of Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model of organizational 

change and development. 

Structural Impediments & Limiting Conditions: Challenges 

Several participants described experiences that are tightly aligned to the way Bolman and 

Deal (2017) define the structural frame. These experiences could not be logically connected to 

any of the other three frames, therefore, it seems these are examples of the structural frame 

working in isolation. Also, the experiences outlined in this section align with the way Ivancevich 

et al. (2014) describes impediments to organizational change as existing conditions which can 

negatively influence the outcome of management change programs. After conducting several 

rounds of thematic coding, the following themes were outlined as structural impediments to 

change: (a) prioritization and resource allocation, (b) institutional adaptability and resilience, (c) 

collaborative and inclusive approach, and (d) long-term perspective. The subsequent section 

provides greater detail and evidence in support of the themes constructed from the data. 

Prioritization and Resource Allocation 

Time and again during the interview process, participants mentioned the institution’s 

administration must make it a known priority to all stakeholders their intention to collect and use 

SLO assessment data. GCC struggled with making the collection and use of SLO data a priority 

for a long time because there were no formal structures in place to assure accountability. Mary 

stated, “If there isn’t someone there to help with assessment, or if it is not part of someone’s job, 

it won’t get done.” Once Mary was hired as the assessment coordinator, she put into place a 

formal structure to help prioritize and integrate the use of SLO data to improve institutional 

outcomes. The specific structure is referred to as the faculty coaching model. While the creation 

72 

 
 
 
 
of the faculty coaching model is seen strictly through the structural frame, the execution of the 

role incorporates multiple frames and will be discussed in detail in a later section. 

Jenny also brought up how a lack of prioritization brought major challenges and delays to 

implementing change around assessment saying, 

One of the biggest problems we had was getting access to our college website. We had to 

go in and make resources available for faculty to do the work, but we couldn’t get the 

permissions we needed to make the changes. 

Jenny elaborated, saying, due to the fact they could not get the necessary permissions, they had 

to rely on Google Drive to effectively disseminate the information and collaborate. Again, 

relying on the structural frame early on in this scenario would have behooved GCC. If the roles, 

goals, and rules were clearly established from the beginning, the need for access to an 

information sharing and collaboration platform–the college website or Google Drive–could have 

been addressed early on. 

One of the best and most important ways for an administration to show that change is a 

priority is to provide the necessary resources to implement the change. At times, this lack of 

resources was a limiting condition for GCC. Jenny explained by saying, “One of the biggest 

challenges we’ve had is getting people paid to do this work, particularly some of the external 

contractors we’ve asked to help us. There was not a specific budget for assessment, so it made it 

difficult.” Engaging the structural frame by establishing a budget for assessment activities will 

help ensure the short- and long-term success of similar assessment initiatives. 

Institutional Adaptability and Resilience 

The structural frame outlined by Bolman and Deal (2017) underscores the roles, goals, 

and rules involved in organizations, and GCC quickly realized that the roles, goals, and rules 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
involved in any organizational change initiative can change in an instant. Mary stated, “One 

thing I’ve seen is change, whether in leadership or some sort of external change, is going to 

happen. We just kept taking steps forward. Sometimes they were small steps, but always 

forward.” A very similar point was made by Hannah who said, 

Both our state higher education system and our regional accreditor changed the 

assessment standards while we were trying to implement this change, so now we were 

trying to revise the learning framework and implement guided pathways and it just 

became initiative overload. 

Relying on the structural frame along with leaders to keep moving in a positive direction, even 

when tasks seem insurmountable or overwhelming, kept GCC on a positive forward path during 

these assessment changes. 

Institutions who are trying to undertake an initiative like GCC need to understand the 

roles, goals, and rules within the structural frame can, and more than likely, will change. In order 

to persevere through these changes institutions must embrace the change and immediately try to 

make some sort of positive step forward to avoid complacency.  

Collaborative and Inclusive Approach 

Implementing an effective assessment plan involving the use of SLO data to make 

decisions is no small task, and it requires buy-in and effort from many stakeholders of the 

institution. Because institutions of higher education are typically large organizations, invisible 

barriers to cooperation often impede cooperation. Mark stated GCC is continually working to 

dismantle their own silos, which have inhibited collaboration in the past, “Looking at our 

different divisions that are overseen by the Provost and Student Affairs cannot be divorced from 

other divisions like Enrollment Management. They have to be guided by the same mission and 

74 

 
 
 
strategic plan.” Mark goes on to say, “We have launched an interconnected planning model 

where we are measuring co-curricular and curricular performance through the same assessment 

lens.” While SLO assessment is often seen as strictly an academic departmental pursuit, 

institutions would be wise to work with other institutional departments from the moment a 

change initiative is decided upon and determine where cooperation and shared roles, goals, and 

rules can be established. 

Another structural issue that consistently arose in interviews was the need to collaborate 

specifically with the Information Technology (IT) department from the very beginning. GCC 

required time and faced frustrations before fully understanding the importance of IT 

collaboration. Planning and executing an assessment initiative requires an immense amount of 

data collection, organization, and storage. Jenny stated, 

We have had some friction with creating our own technical systems for data storage and 

use. It got to a point where faculty and assessment coaches threw their hands up in 

frustration. We have since implemented Google Drive, and it has been much smoother 

since. 

Making decisions based on SLO data necessitates efficient technology, and institutions should 

utilize formal structures (i.e., roles, goals, and rules) to ensure their IT departments are an 

ongoing part of planning and implementation. 

Long-Term Perspective 

Institutions like GCC, who are attempting to shift the paradigm for how they engage in 

strategic decision making (i.e., using SLO assessment data to drive institutional improvement) 

must understand this is a long-term commitment involving constant change. Several participants 

75 

 
 
 
 
shared anecdotes outlining how GCC struggled to deal with some of the organizational structures 

resulting in longer than anticipated timelines for change. Hannah stated, 

Our governance structure, in terms of process, works well. But like any democratic 

process, it takes time. You have one group reporting to the next group then waiting on 

feedback from another group before a decision can be made. Sometimes decisions need 

to be more timely. 

Susan also brought up the issue of time and how it was struggle for some at GCC who wanted 

fast results if they were going to put in effort when she said, 

We were under the burden of providing proof and evidence that what we were doing 

actually could make a difference in faculty members’ teaching and learning; the part of 

your job they actually love. It can make a difference in the curriculum they teach and 

how they teach it to their students. It took us a long time to be able to give that burden of 

proof, and so we had to start with the faculty members who are most open to change. 

An institutional-level change initiative is never as simple as it may seem, and this is something 

GCC had to struggle with to learn. Setting realistic expectations of the time and effort to enact 

such a change early in the process through the mechanisms of the structural frame–roles, goals, 

and rules–may have been helpful for GCC to deal with these struggles.  

Structural Impediments & Limiting Conditions: Successes 

Participants were often in agreement on positive actions taken by GCC, which aligned 

with Bolman and Deal’s (2017) structural frame. This section focuses on those actions taken by 

GCC within the structural frame that helped the institution to implement the ongoing use of SLO 

assessment data to improve. From my interpretation, the actions described in this section 

represent Bolman and Deal’s (2017) structural frame working in isolation, without the influence 

76 

 
 
 
of the human resource, political, or symbolic frames. The actions described by participants were 

coded into four themes: (a) strategic and incremental approach to implementation; (b) 

empowerment and support for stakeholders; (c) credibility and validation; (d) proactive 

leadership and momentum. 

Strategic and Incremental Approach to Implementation 

Implementing large-scale organizational change is not an easy task. This point was 

reinforced by Luke when he said, “A lot of large college reforms die because you try to bring the 

end product to the people. It's just too much for the people. Too much to be accepted all at once.” 

The administrators, led by Mary, deliberately took a strategic and incremental approach to 

implementing new assessment efforts. Luke recalled, “We created a system for faculty to work 

through each course in their program and revise the curriculum so it aligned with the new 

learning framework, and most importantly to think about how they planned to assess it.” These 

intentional efforts then allowed for the development of a structured system. This structured 

system for revising and aligning curriculum was piloted by several early adopters as Luke 

recalled, 

We didn't try to put everybody through the process all at once. We found some of our 

people who were really into it and we used them to help us pilot and figure out some 

processes and paperwork type things. 

Implementing in such an incremental and strategic way seems to have allowed GCC to be 

innovative and find some early success to build from. 

Having some programs moving forward with implementing changes to the assessment 

process, while others lag behind may sound counterintuitive, but this was actually a strategic 

77 

 
 
 
decision made by GCC. Mary explained the logic behind allowing departments to move at their 

own pace when implementing this assessment initiative, 

You can't wait for everybody to be done. Your whole college will take forever to get 

everything done. You have to show some early success and move forward, so you get 

your early adopters and you showcase them to the holdouts. 

GCC allowed for flexibility in the scope and timing of implementation of this assessment 

initiative and Mary felt that was vitally important saying, “You’re not going to hit it out of the 

park every time, so that initial success from the early adopters is key in building momentum for 

the institution.” As shown by GCC, welcoming any success while implementing a change 

initiative is of the utmost importance. 

Empowerment and Support for Stakeholders 

Change can be a scary thought for many people, but one thing GCC discovered during 

this time of change is empowering and supporting the individuals responsible for implementing 

change can help ensure success. Expecting individuals to be resistant to change at first, Mark 

discussed how the assessment team decided to start with familiar topic areas as a way to support 

faculty members engaging with the assessment process for the first time saying, 

Early adoption, where we really kind of cut our teeth doing assessment, was around 

written communication and critical thinking, which we think of as two overarching 

outcomes. They're institutional outcomes in that they cut across all of our programs and 

departments. 

GCC utilized the structural frame by implementing the rule or practice of starting with content 

areas familiar to all faculty. This practice allowed faculty to focus more on the assessment 

concepts and processes without being confused or out of their depth pertaining to content. 

78 

 
 
 
Another way GCC utilized the structural frame to empower and support assessment 

stakeholders was by creating replicable processes. According to Luke, “Mary and her small team 

developed a fairly robust documentation process for faculty to utilize, which made the process of 

updating courses to fit the new learning framework and then determining the mode of assessment 

more systematic.” Once the updating process and documentation was successfully piloted by 

early adopters, it was then replicated by faculty groups who had been more reluctant to engage in 

the assessment initiative. 

Early in the implementation of this assessment initiative, GCC discovered they would 

need to take action if they wanted to gain more participation from some of the holdouts. Again, 

assessment leaders relied on aspects of the structural frame (e.g., goals and structured time) to 

achieve greater participation. “We didn’t just ask faculty members to do this whenever they 

found time. We gave them goals and deadlines and then we actually carved out time for them to 

work on this,” said Luke. Providing the holdouts with proximal goals and a structured framework 

to reach those goals proved to be a successful combination for GCC. 

Credibility and Validation 

Taking on a large organizational change initiative comes with risks. For GCC, vast 

amounts of resources (i.e., time and money) have been allocated to this initiative, and if not 

successful, there can be serious repercussions like turnover, losing accreditation, or worse. GCC 

realized they needed support for this endeavor, not only from internal stakeholders, but also from 

external sources to help bring credibility and validation to the process. Local advisory boards 

were engaged early in the process to help build support for the hard work ahead. As Jenny 

recalled. “We relied heavily on our advisory boards in the beginning. We asked them to weigh in 

on the things that we were recommending to change about our programs and also about how we 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
would assess.” Administrators at GCC felt getting the validation from advisory boards on the 

changes they were planning to implement would help motivate faculty and provide assurance 

that the hard work to come would be worth it. 

Once GCC began to implement the changes to their assessment practices, they continued 

to build credibility and validation of the process. As Beth recalled, 

When I sit down with a program or a course coordinator and we begin to revamp their 

assessment process, one of the questions that I ask about key assessments is “What do 

you wanna know? What would be most useful to you?” Which is much better than 

saying, “Well, you know, all SHES and MSCHE says we have to know this.” 

Beth was advocating for starting the process by showing the faculty member how you can make 

their lives easier, and this helped to build credibility and buy in for the process. 

I followed up with Beth asking how GCC knew if they were being successful in their 

attempts to build credibility and validation for the new assessment process. She answered by 

saying, 

As assessment coaches started helping more people, more people started wanting 

coaching. So it's sort of institutionalized itself where people would email me and say, 

“I'm gonna want you to be my coach.” They didn’t necessarily have anything coming up. 

They just knew there are coaches and they want to be on my list. All the faculty have 

kind of gotten to the point where they're like, “Oh, coaches are the way that I get things 

done, so I'll just reach right out to whatever coach and make sure that I get things done.” 

Sort of like a nuclear reaction, right? It just keeps itself going in that way. 

80 

 
 
 
 
While there are probably more scientific ways to measure the level of credibility or validation 

(e.g., survey methods), GCC began seeing increased demand from faculty to be involved in the 

assessment change process, which they interpreted as credibility and validation of the process. 

Proactive Leadership and Momentum 

The theme of proactive leadership and momentum showed a sizable amount of agreement 

among participants; perhaps the most agreement amongst all themes. Luke gave his input on how 

to get the process started and begin to build momentum saying, 

So we didn't try to put everybody through the process all at once. We found some of our 

people that were really into it and we used them to help us start a pilot and figure out 

some processes and paperwork type things. This really helped to get us off on the right 

foot. 

Luke’s sentiments around starting small and with individuals who were familiar and excited 

were echoed by Jenny who said, 

A number of programs do similar assessments. So we started with art, nutrition and 

kinesiology. We built rubrics that we could use to assess student artifacts that would 

capture course learning outcomes and program learning outcomes for these three 

programs at the same time. Then we would get together afterwards to look at the data and 

ask the content experts, “How does this make a difference? Where do we need to make 

changes?” 

Starting small and starting with concepts everyone is familiar with seemed to help GCC build 

momentum for the large-scale changes in assessment practices. 

The previous paragraph highlighted examples of how GCC built initial momentum 

through proactive leadership, but sustaining momentum is something that is equally important 

81 

 
 
 
 
and can be more difficult. Mary, who has been the leader of GCC’s drive to improve SLO 

assessment practices, had a great deal to say about the importance of being proactive and keeping 

momentum. “Forward momentum and transparent conversation; just getting people to the table 

to participate in conversation, even if imperfect, is how you get change to happen.” When 

discussing how to keep momentum going, Mary also brought up the importance of flexibility 

saying, 

You also have to be flexible, but the biggest piece is figuring out how to balance when to 

allow flexibility and when not to. Like you can't wait for everybody to be done. Your 

whole college will take forever to get everything done. So, you get your early adopters 

and you showcase and reward their success, while allowing for flexibility for some of the 

stragglers. 

Reiterating the importance of forward momentum, Mary concluded her thoughts on this topic 

saying, 

You have to realize you're not going to hit it out of the park every time and that forward 

momentum is sort of, above all else, important. So, sometimes you take the forward 

momentum and you take stock of where you are and what you need to do better and you 

keep moving forward. 

The amount of agreement around this theme shows how important staying proactive and keeping 

momentum was to GCC’s success in implementing these changes to their SLO assessment 

practices. 

Human Resource Impediments & Limiting Conditions: Challenges 

There were fewer impactful examples of the human resource frame of Bolman and Deal’s 

(2017) four frame model acting in isolation as impediments to change provided by participants. 

82 

 
 
 
However, the constructed themes seemed to be quite important, and necessary for GCC to 

eventually navigate successfully. As previously stated, the central concepts making up the human 

resource frame are needs, skills, and relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The themes derived 

from participant interviews, which were interpreted as impediments to change were (a) 

continuous motivation from leadership and (b) emotional support and reframing. The subsequent 

section provides greater detail and evidence in support of the themes found in the data. 

Continuous Motivation from Leadership 

As discussed in the structural impediments to change section, GCC had a somewhat 

difficult time understanding just how long and arduous the commitment to re-envisioning the 

assessment process would be, which led to frustration and burnout amongst faculty who were 

trying to implement the change. Pertaining to the theme of continuous motivation, Hannah 

recalled, 

We had to switch database technology providers in the fall of 2020, which put our 

progress on hold. After the switch was complete, we repeatedly tried to get in touch with 

our assessment coach, but didn’t hear anything until spring of 2021 when we were 

informed our assessment coach was no longer our assessment coach. It wasn’t because of 

any tension, it was simply because we had only budgeted to get the process started and a 

new coach wasn’t assigned to us yet. 

Hannah also stated there was turnover at the Provost position during this time, which meant there 

was even less direction from leadership. The lack of motivation and clear communication of 

operational objectives from leadership during this time period seems to have negatively impacted 

the frustration and burnout amongst faculty. 

83 

 
 
 
The issue of continuous motivation was also outlined by Luke, when he discussed some 

struggles leaders were having with certain holdouts within the faculty ranks. Specifically, Luke 

said, 

You have the old-timey faculty member that says everything was better back in the day, 

and that’s so classic. For a long time, we were stuck thinking about the people who were 

saying these things, but then we shifted and started thinking not about the people but 

about what their motivations were. From there we determined how to meet the 

motivations of this archetype who is holding out and making the process more difficult. 

The ability of leadership to not focus on the individual, but rather their motivations, seems to 

have been a turning point for overcoming motivation as an impediment to change.  

Emotional Support and Reframing 

There are times when people do not respond to motivation; when people are simply upset 

and want to be validated for feeling the way they do. Beth shared how she came to understand 

this fact after dealing with several faculty members who were frustrated and emotionally drained 

by this change initiative. Specifically, Beth said, 

Faculty have to do extra things. They're going to have to meet with coaches, to rewrite 

things, and re-examine programs and courses. There is some resentment in terms of the 

extra work that is involved in this process, and it can feel overwhelming. One of the 

techniques I learned is to let people complain and give them a moment to be like, “This is 

awful. I really don't like it. I don't like what I have to do. I don't like that I might have to 

change something I do in my class because of some external pressure.” I would let them 

know their complaints were totally valid and that I didn’t necessarily like it either. Most 

importantly, after letting them vent, I would always ask, “But how can I make this work 

84 

 
 
 
 
for you?” To have another faculty member validate those feelings but reframe them 

afterward makes things much easier. 

Large-scale organizational change is difficult and one of the most challenging aspects for GCC is 

effectively managing the human capital driving the change.  

Burnout, disagreement, resentment, and other negative emotions are natural when dealing 

with large and difficult projects, and GCC is still grappling with how to best deal with these 

issues. Hannah illustrates this ongoing difficulty saying, 

It's a lot. In addition to changing standards among SHES and MSCHE, we are also 

revising the Learning Framework, and implementing guided pathways, which was 

proposed by our previous Provost who left before it was finished. I would say it’s 

initiative overload, and our real obstacles right now are burnout and morale. I went into 

our assessment day planning on skipping it. I was just going to take a personal day 

because I didn’t feel like I could do it. My department chair said to me, “It's virtual. Just 

show up, turn your camera off and then do what you need to do on the back end.” 

Even though GCC has successfully implemented positive changes in its SLO assessment 

practices, the institution still struggles to maintain positive momentum, particularly within the 

human resource frame. 

Human Resource Impediments & Limiting Conditions: Successes 

Participants consistently discussed the key concepts of the human resource frame–needs, 

skills, and relationships–outlined by Bolman and Deal (2017), and many of the experiences 

highlighted instances in which positive aspects of the human resource frame were leveraged to 

advance institutional change. Similar to the human resource impediments to change section, 

there were fewer themes derived in the human resources implementation of the method section. 

85 

 
 
However, the extent of agreement between participants on these themes was quite strong. The 

themes derived from the data were: (a) systematic approach to change, and (b) inclusive 

decision-making. 

Systematic Approach to Change 

Several participants brought up the concept of systematic or systems thinking when 

discussing how many individuals worked together to make this change initiative successful. The 

first individual who stressed the importance of taking a systematic approach to this change was 

Luke, who said, 

Mary and I are systems-level thinkers. You have to think of how individual parts work 

together to affect the whole. It's not that it's the only way to think, but in order to get 

something through like this, I mean you have to think big picture and we certainly tried 

very hard to help other people see some of the big picture issues of running large scale 

reforms at colleges. 

Hannah also stressed the importance of being systematic when building the team to implement 

this change initiative saying, 

You have to have your aces in their places. How did those aces get to those places? That 

was Mary. Mary is picking faculty members and assessment coaches that have positive 

attitudes and can fight through the resistance. I definitely think it was systematic and 

strategic. 

Administrators at GCC, namely Mary and Luke, took the time to plan out how the new 

assessment practices would work as an entire system, but also how each individual part of that 

system would function to increase their chances of success.  

86 

 
 
 
 
Inclusive Decision-Making 

The concept of being inclusive and collaborative when making decisions was another 

important aspect of GCC’s success with their SLO assessment changes, which aligned with 

Bolman and Deal’s (2017) human resource frame. Many of the decisions made surrounding the 

implementation of new SLO assessment practices were done so within GCC’s Curriculum 

Committee. Beth felt the spirit of inclusivity and collaboration amongst this long-standing 

committee helped foster those ideals within the SLO assessment change initiative stating, 

It's always been a very collaborative group. A group that can make jokes, can question, 

and can come together around a problem. Even if people don't agree, it's always very 

gentle. It's not necessarily like, ‘you're doing this wrong’ and, ‘this is not how we treat 

people.’ There's just gentle redirection from that committee and it makes for easier 

collaboration. 

Hannah agreed with Beth about the willingness to be inclusive and collaborate amongst the 

Curriculum Committee saying, 

The willingness to collaborate despite resistance or obstacles and differing value systems 

and beliefs was super important. The process was a success because we overcame those 

and we were still able to collaborate. Utilizing the goodwill and spirit of inclusivity from 

this already intact committee seemed to help springboard this change initiative in a 

positive direction.  

GCC, and in particular the Curriculum Committee’s, ability to maintain an inclusive decision 

making environment seems to have allowed the SLO assessment initiative to persist through 

some of the most challenging times.  

87 

 
 
 
Political Impediments & Limiting Conditions: Challenges 

Much like the previous section on the human resource frame, there were few instances 

discussed by participants of the political frame working in isolation as impediments to change. 

The central concepts of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) political frame are power, conflict, 

competition, and politics. Most of the experiences participants brought up pertaining to the 

political frame acting as an impediment to change had to do with conflict, and these experiences 

seemed to fit into a singular theme. The theme derived from participant interviews, which was 

interpreted as an impediment to change, was (a) patience and persistence with conflict. The 

following subsection provides the details of this single theme. 

Patience and Persistence with Conflict 

Community colleges are complex organizations often containing multiple groups of 

stakeholders who have competing interests. Coupling the competing interests of various 

stakeholder groups with an ever-shrinking pool of resources, GCC found itself with a recipe for 

conflict. Hannah shared how political conflict impeded GCC’s ability to move quickly, but 

patience and persistence won out saying, 

There were definitely individuals who were intentionally holding up the change. But, one 

thing I will say about the faculty at GCC is that we value governance very much and we 

respect the process of governance, whether or not we always agree with the outcomes. So 

even if the outcome comes from a contentious vote we're gonna follow the flow of 

governance. We combatted the conflict by being patient and letting the governance 

process work. 

Initially, because Hannah referenced both political conflict and the formal structure of 

governance, I wondered if this was evidence of two frames (i.e., structural and political) working 

88 

 
 
 
in combination. However, my interpretation was that the patience employed by supporters of the 

change was separate from the governance process itself, and represented the political frame 

working in isolation. 

Hannah went on to discuss a particularly contentious case of political conflict between a 

longtime faculty member and an assessment coach noting, 

This individual had been at the college for roughly 30 years and so it's not like we haven't 

always been assessing stuff. It's just in the last decade become a more formalized process 

and more technical and time consuming in nature. So this person was particularly 

resistant. All I can tell you is that there was a major disagreement between two of the 

faculty members and their assessment coach. That particular coach walked away from 

our area. So, essentially, we just took a backseat. Jump ahead about six months and we 

were assigned a new coach for our general program and this is where I step in and say, 

“just give me what you've done so far on paper and let me do the rest of it. I’ll work with 

the coach.” 

In this case the impediment to change–political conflict–was, at least temporarily, seen as 

insurmountable. GCC’s assessment administrators decided to employ patience and persistence 

by temporarily walking away and were productive in another area before returning to this 

department to try again. 

Luke provided similar stories about patience and persistence in the face of political 

conflict. After sharing specific instances of conflict, Luke gave a summative comment on 

conflict saying, 

There were many who didn't want to engage in meaningful assessment, so we ignored 

them in some ways knowing we’d come back to them. By the time we did get to the 

89 

 
 
 
 
resistors, we had already updated and changed about 85% of the programs. They knew it 

was now their turn and the resistance was largely gone. 

These examples of patience and persistence in the face of political conflict showcase how GCC 

dealt with impediments to change within the political frame. 

Political Impediments & Limiting Conditions: Successes 

Illustrated by the examples in the last section, the political frame can be wrought with 

conflict and competition, which can act as impediments to an organizational change initiative. 

Several participants, however, provided examples of how GCC engaged with the political frame 

to successfully implement their new assessment practices. Again, there was a singular theme 

derived from the participant interviews for the political implementation of the method. From the 

participant interviews a single theme was discovered showing the political frame used to 

implement the change initiative. The theme was (a) finding diverse allies. The following 

subsection provides the details of this single theme.  

Finding Diverse Allies 

Much like actual politicians, assessment administrators at GCC knew they would need a 

base of supporters if they were going to successfully implement the proposed changes to their 

practice of assessing and using SLOs to drive institutional improvement. During the planning 

phase, before any major changes had taken place, Luke recalled GCC’s effort to build political 

support saying, 

We built a team of both faculty and non-faculty members that were our allies, and we 

used them to help us in our planning processes. We also used them as eyes and ears 

throughout the building to help spread the word and build more support. 

90 

 
 
 
Luke went on to say, “We would often hear back from these allies about potential issues or 

resistance, and we were able to hedge these issues off by networking solutions through our large 

group of allies.” This proactive style of gaining support also seemed to help GCC gauge and 

combat potential political resistance. 

Hannah again echoed Luke’s assertion regarding the importance of having a diverse 

group of allies saying, 

They got us working together. They got the key faculty leaders who were the 

cheerleaders, who were going to spread the word and get the buy-in, and also were going 

to work hard to get the evidence. This was especially important in terms of the buy-in, 

but also just working our way through resistance. 

These participant experiences seem to show how GCC felt it was very important to be proactive 

within the political frame. 

Symbolic Impediments & Limiting Conditions: Challenges 

The central concepts of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) symbolic frame are culture, meaning, 

metaphor, ritual, and stories. Again, there were several instances of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) 

symbolic frame working in isolation as an impediment to change interpreted from participants’ 

descriptions of experiences in implementing new SLO assessment practices. From the participant 

interviews a single theme was discovered showing the symbolic frame working as an 

impediment to change. The theme was (a) cultural shift through perception management. The 

following subsection provides the details of this single theme. 

Cultural Shift Through Perception Management 

Assessment in higher education, even the assessment of SLOs, is not a new practice. 

However, effective assessment of SLOs and subsequent use of the data is a very new concept. 

91 

 
 
 
 
The literature reviewed showed countless instances of burnout and apathy towards the 

assessment process amongst faculty who often viewed assessment as a useless activity to placate 

accreditors (Cain, 2014; Chadi, Jeworrek, & Mertins, 2017). GCC’s initial impediment to 

implementing the SLO assessment change initiative was to address historical failures. Susan 

provided a great example saying, 

Initially, I think the biggest hindrance to our success was a faculty body that had no 

experience in assessment actually ever being successful or useful. It was just this pain in 

the butt bureaucratic thing you had to do. We were under the burden of providing proof 

and evidence that what we were doing actually could make a difference, and it took us a 

long time to be able to give that burden of proof. 

Luke shared a similar memory about the past acting as a symbolic impediment to change stating, 

We had the freedom to decide how we wanted to change our assessment practices, but it 

didn’t change the fact that these changes were imposed by accreditors. We had to work 

hard to overcome the image of who was behind all of this. 

GCC really seemed to struggle to address and challenge pre-existing perceptions or misgivings 

amongst faculty about the use of student learning outcome data. Eventually, through utilizing the 

symbolic frame, GCC was able to acknowledge and address historical challenges and frustrations 

that hindered previous attempts to assess and use SLO data to drive institutional improvement. 

Symbolic Impediments & Limiting Conditions: Successes 

For GCC, the symbolic frame working in isolation to facilitate the implementation of 

improved SLO assessment methods was an area where participants had much to say. Participant 

input seemed to congregate around two consistent themes. The themes derived from participant 

interviews, which were interpreted as successful implementation of the method were (a) strategic 

92 

 
 
communication and messaging and (b) narrative building and meaningful engagement. The 

following subsection provides the details of these two themes. 

Strategic Communication and Messaging 

Several participants shared their opinions and experiences about how GCC emphasized 

communication and messaging of the improved SLO assessment initiative from the start. Susan 

shared how important it was to explicitly tie assessment practices to the mission and vision of the 

institution saying, 

The mission of the institution is the most important thing and if you can tie assessment 

directly to the mission, it’s hard for people to refuse to do it. When you walk onto our 

campus the first thing you see are huge banners that tout our mission along with our 

institutional learning outcomes, which are the bedrock of our assessment practices. 

Luke shared a very similar sentiment when he recalled how GCC intentionally branded their 

assessment process, “We created the learning framework, which was a visual representation of 

our mission, vision, and values and it laid out aspects of our assessment process.” These first 

examples of how GCC branded and advertised their improved SLO assessment processes 

highlight clear examples of the symbolic frame. 

Hannah added more context to the importance of strategic communication and messaging 

to the overall success of their assessment initiative saying, 

The assessment coaches had to let us know what we had to do and how to do it, but the 

biggest part to start off was coaching us through the language of assessment, so we could 

all be on the same page and have meaningful conversations. 

Establishing a shared vocabulary and language early in the process seemed to be an important 

factor in the successful implementation of the method for GCC. 

93 

 
 
 
Several times participants pointed to the importance of communicating early successes 

had in the implementation of the new SLO assessment process. Luke stated, “We worked hard to 

get the word out about initial successes. We would tout early adopters who worked with 

assessment coaches to align their curriculum to the new assessment processes.” Mary added to 

the importance of showcasing success by talking about how GCC is working to showcase 

positive assessment results, “We are getting better about reviewing assessment results at an 

institutional level. These positive results will reverberate better if you bring it out of the darkness 

into the light.” Communicating success seems to be a way that GCC tried to build support and 

legitimacy for the SLO assessment initiative. 

Narrative Building and Meaningful Engagement 

Nearly all of the participants shared frustration about how assessment had historically 

been viewed as an external requirement foisted upon the institution by individuals and 

institutions with no direct ties to GCC. The shared frustration amongst participants seemed to be 

about how difficult it was to overcome this old narrative and the hard feelings it had created 

amongst faculty members. Hannah outlined GCC’s first step in successfully building a new 

narrative and more meaningful engagement saying, 

I give a lot of credit to Mary and the assessment coaches because no matter how negative 

or resistant the climate was, they listen, legitimize the opinion, they understand it, and 

then they help us keep working in a positive direction. With assessment this is one area of 

our college where we have our aces in their places. We have people who can deflect the 

cynicism and the resistance, and be patient. 

94 

 
 
 
Assessment professionals at GCC were able to hear and legitimize issues with the old narrative 

of assessment and still push forward with building a new narrative and more meaningful 

engagement with the assessment process.  

Once GCC was able to combat resistance and hard feelings from past assessment failures, 

it was time to begin establishing a new narrative about how SLO assessment would look at GCC 

moving forward. Participants seemed to be in agreement about how they were able to 

successfully establish a new assessment narrative for GCC, and the way they did it was by no 

longer framing the narrative around accreditation imperatives and instead building a narrative 

around using SLO assessment for improving student success and usefulness to faculty. Hannah 

discussed this reframing saying, “GCC is really driven by students. We want our students to be 

successful most of all. These changes to assessment were put in place to help identify how we 

can make students more successful.” Jenny shared her experience about how GCC worked to 

reframe the narrative toward student success saying, 

It's like fundraising. If you're approaching a funder, a donor, if they have the means to 

give and you can talk to them about the mission and you know they care about it, they're 

going to give. It's the same thing with faculty. We know they care about students and you 

have to talk about how this work is going to make life better for students. So, I think the 

fundamental message was we crafted the right one. 

Framing the importance of quality SLO assessment for improving student success seemed to be a 

winning message for GCC.  

Adapting the narrative toward how SLO assessment can make the lives of faculty easier 

is another way GCC leveraged the symbolic frame to implement the method. Beth recalled how 

she crafted her message to resistant faculty saying, 

95 

 
 
 
 
When I talked to a faculty member who said, “This is busy work and I hate it.” I say, “I 

totally understand. But what if we all sat down together and found I teach the concept of 

change over time in my biology class and you teach change over time in calculus too. If 

we develop our artifacts together and thoughtfully, we can have data we can use to 

evaluate the effectiveness of both our classes without doing anything extra.” The faculty 

member was much more open to this type of collaborative message. 

Susan also provided an example of the usefulness of messaging SLO assessment to resistant 

faculty in a way that shows how their lives will be made easier saying, 

We got to talking about how useful assessment can be and I said, “Well, I can go to our 

database and pull everybody who does information literacy, then I can go to the library 

and let them know all the classes that are going to need research and assistance. And then 

the library can go to those faculty and set up sessions that would fit exactly into their 

course.” The faculty member was excited to be able to have this done without adding any 

more work to their plate. I reiterated to them it's not just about the assessment artifacts, 

it's about the planning before the artifact. 

These examples show how resistant faculty may be assuaged by a carefully crafted assessment 

narrative. 

Implementation of the Method: Timing, Scope, & Experimentation 

According to Ivancevich et al. (2014), after addressing the impediments and limiting 

conditions to change, organizations must determine how they are to implement the change 

method. Specifically, organizations must address issues of timing, scope, and experimentation. 

The following subsections provide evidence of GCC confronting the issues of timing, scope, and 

experimentation gleaned from participant interviews.  

96 

 
 
 
Timing 

When implementing a change initiative, it is possible for institutions to have perfect plans 

and execution, yet still fail to successfully implement the initiative. One reason why perfect plans 

and execution can still fail is the institution’s failure to evaluate the proper timing of the change 

initiative. According to Ivancevich et al. (2014, p. 528), “Timing refers to the selection of the 

appropriate time at which to initiate the intervention.” The administrators leading these 

assessment changes (i.e., Luke and Mary), were keenly aware of the importance of timing for 

this change initiative. Luke said,  

I don’t know if everyone was ever really ready for a change of this size, but we had these 

external markers from our accreditors, which we wanted to align our change schedule 

with. We looked at our next accreditation study and we worked our way backwards of 

what we needed to have in place in order to be ready for them. That’s how we created a 

6-year timeline on what we needed to have done for the accreditors. 

When discussing the same issue of aligning the timing of GCC’s SLO assessment change 

initiative with the requirements of their external accreditors, Mary echoed Luke’s sentiment 

saying,  

The benefit to aligning our timeline with the accreditor was we had the opportunity to 

sort of clean up everything. All the courses were rewritten, all the course learning 

outcomes were examined, and there was an honest conversation about what is the walk 

out the door, knowledge in this course and in this program? 

By considering the best time for which to implement their SLO assessment change initiative, 

GCC thwarted potential challenges. Also, by integrating their change initiative with the required 

97 

 
 
 
changes and timeline for their external stakeholders, GCC was able to harness the credibility and 

motivation of the accreditation process. 

Scope 

Creating a perfect SLO assessment process and using the data collected to improve 

outcomes is a vast undertaking for any HEI. Institutions looking to implement a change of this 

magnitude must realize it is not feasible to accomplish all at once. Nor is it effective to 

incorporate change too slowly. There must be a balance between being too ambitious and not 

ambitious enough. Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) concept of scope becomes relevant at this stage of 

the discussion. In an organizational change initiative, scope refers to the magnitude or scale at 

which the change will be implemented. Again, administrators at GCC, mainly Mary, showed 

awareness of this issue saying,  

It turns out, when you adopt an entire new framework, and you rewrite all your 

institutional learning outcomes, and you line up your accreditation schedule to align with 

these changes, it takes time. You can't let up because it didn't get done in a year. You 

have to keep going and you have to stagger it and take both bite-size and big-sized 

chunks all at the same time. 

Assessment coach, Jenny, also addressed how scope of implementation is a constant 

consideration. Jenny stated,  

We realize that not everyone is ready for these changes, so we talk about who is ready 

and who needs help. We talk about who's been collecting a lot of data and is ready for the 

next step. For example, right now we're planning for summer assessments and we're 

looking at who's got a lot of stuff in the hopper, because now that everyone has really 

started to collect, we're starting to think about where the opportunities are. 

98 

 
 
 
At first, it may seem counterintuitive to purposefully tamp down ambition. However, in the long 

run of an organizational change initiative like GCC’s SLO assessment change, finding a 

sustainable scope of implementation is crucial to long term success.  

Experimentation 

There is not a singular prescriptive way for institutions to implement the use of SLO 

assessment data to improve institutional quality (Baker et al., 2012). Because of this fact, 

institutions are free to experiment to determine what methods work best for them. As mentioned 

in the previous section, GCC determined it would be best for them to implement these SLO 

assessment changes in a piecemeal fashion, beginning with those programs which were most 

open to the changes. According to Ivancevich et al. (2014), this piecemeal implementation 

provides great conditions for experimentation. When programs at GCC experimented with the 

implementation of these SLO assessment changes, assessment administrators received feedback, 

allowing them to learn from each successive iteration. “As the experimental attempts provide 

positive signals that the program is proceeding as planned, there’s a reinforcement effect.” 

(Ivancevich et al., 2014, p. 529). Luke discussed how GCC benefitted from their small-scale 

experimentation, and realized larger scale success saying,  

We found some of our people that were really into assessment, and we used them to help 

us pilot and figure out some processes and administrative type things. These people were 

willing to deal with some of the trial and error, and once we got it figured out, we were 

able to present more polished processes to the more resistant people. 

Mary also presented her experience with experimentation when discussing the creation of a 

visual representation of their assessment process saying,  

99 

 
 
 
We recast assessment at GCC with the creation of the learning framework, which is a 

graphic organizer by which we make sense of the outcomes that we require of our 

students. We piloted this concept and found it helped people develop a shared meaning 

and understanding of what we were trying to accomplish. 

The willingness of GCC to try new ideas, evaluate the outcomes, and scale up the successful 

concepts was key in driving success on a large scale.  

Summary 

Chapter 5 provided the results showing how each of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four 

frames were interpreted to be working in isolation to address Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) potential 

impediments and limiting conditions. These results were broken down separately by 

impediments and limiting conditions that GCC struggled with, and impediments and limiting 

conditions where they found immediate success. I also presented evidence of GCC addressing 

Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) portion of their model called implementation of the method, which 

includes addressing issues of timing, scope, and experimentation. 

100 

 
 
 
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS & THE INTEGRATION OF THE FOUR FRAMES 

The previous chapter explored participant experiences where each of Bolman and Deal’s 

(2017) four frames were interpreted as working or being leveraged in isolation. However, 

organizations are complex entities where decisions and subsequent activities can be perceived or 

interpreted differently by distinct actors. Bolman and Deal (2017, p. 301) echo this previous 

statement saying, “Multiple realities produce confusion as individuals see the same event 

through different lenses.” This complexity calls for change agents to understand the interplay and 

integration of the four frames to make the most effective decisions. The following chapter 

presents the interpretation of participant experiences where multiple frames were being 

integrated to implement change to SLO assessment practices at GCC. Because there are four 

frames and in any scenario where multiple frames are involved there could be two, three, or four 

of the frames at work; 11 possible combinations of the frames exist. Although this chapter does 

not present examples of participant experiences for all 11 combinations, the combinations that 

proved to be the most important to GCC’s success in implementing SLO assessment change are 

discussed. It is important to note that in the last chapter, evidence was presented showing GCC 

having both challenges and immediate success around the potential impediments and limiting 

conditions. However, in this chapter, the themes derived from participants were exclusively 

examples of successful ways in which GCC addressed potential impediments and limiting 

conditions. 

Combination: Structural, Human Resource, and Political 

Within the data collected there were many examples provided where more than one of 

Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames seemed to be integrated and working at the same time. 

Specifically, this section focuses on examples where the structural, human resource, and political 

101 

 
 
 
(STHRPL) frames were interpreted as working at the same time and towards the same end. 

Despite their distinct emphases, these frames are not mutually exclusive, rather, they intersect 

and complement one another in complex ways. For instance, while the structural frame provides 

the framework for organizing tasks and resources, the human resource frame informs how these 

structures influence individual and group behavior. Similarly, the political frame adds a layer of 

understanding by revealing the underlying power dynamics that influence both structural design 

and human resource practices (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Based on participant interviews, two 

major themes emerged, which reflected the integration of the structural, human resource, and 

political frames. Those themes were coded as (a) managing conflict and resistance to change and 

(b) securing resources. The following subsections provide greater detail on these themes. 

Managing Conflict and Resistance to Change 

Conflict and resistance were consistently reported by participants in this study while 

implementing changes to the assessment process at GCC. The nature of both conflict and 

resistance presupposes competing sides, which sets the conditions for the political frame to be 

effective. Conflict also involves people and their relationships, which inherently draws on the 

human resource frame. The structural frame relies on roles, goals, and rules and several 

participants provided similar examples highlighting how the structural frame was leveraged in 

these situations of conflict where the political and human resource frames were already being 

utilized. Luke discussed how leaders of the assessment change initiative anticipated conflict and 

resistance and planned accordingly saying,  

Academic Senate had already approved everything we were implementing. A faculty 

body approved this process, so they couldn't argue that we weren't going to do it because 

102 

 
 
 
we were going to do it. The ones who were resisting, they’re faculty, they're the group 

who approved it, so the argument was short-lived. 

Mark shared a similar experience about how conflict and resistance were quelled relying 

on the integration of the STHRPL frames saying,  

People got a bit territorial in their disciplinary content. For instance, social science felt 

they were the only faculty qualified to teach about social justice. However, there are other 

course learning outcomes that align to these diversity, inclusion, and social justice 

outcomes and the Assessment Committee established these outcomes can be taught and 

measured in other courses. The Assessment Committee is representative of the entire 

college, involving a representative from each department, so if they approve a course as 

meeting the knowledge and skill areas for DISJ outcomes, it leaves less of a toehold for a 

particular department to disapprove. 

Hannah also experienced this type of pushback, summing up the experience in fewer words 

saying, “There were a lot of disagreements and not all decisions were amicable, but we just did it 

through governance.” Relying on solid institutional structures during times of strife in the 

political and human resource frames seems to have been a particularly useful tactic for GCC. 

There are times when conflict and resistance from individuals presents an impasse. 

Hannah recalled a time of great disagreement between a senior faculty member and an 

assessment coach. Tension was high and feelings were hurt. Hannah, who showed buy-in to the 

process, volunteered to take a larger role, while those who were in conflict stepped away 

temporarily.  

103 

 
 
I stepped in and took what had been done to that point and worked with the coach to 

complete it. I assured them I’d see that our views were adequately represented. I took the 

initiative to take care of this because I knew it was tense. 

Allowing those engaged in great conflict to step away from the process, while allowing those 

who bought into the process to take a greater role proved to be helpful for GCC. 

Luke discussed an experience where after dealing with a particularly harsh conflict, he and Mary 

had a helpful revelation pertaining to combating conflict and resistance. He recalled,  

When dealing with future conflicts, we decided to challenge the archetype of resistance, 

not the individual. For example, you have the old time faculty member who thinks 

everything was better back in the day. Or you have the faculty member who believes their 

discipline is pure and everything else isn’t. Or you have the administrator who needs 

attention. That helped us a lot, actually, to not think about the person who was causing us 

problems, but what are their motivations? Why is this person causing us problems here 

and there? How do we work with them or around them? 

While Luke mentioned working around individuals at the center of conflict, he and others shared 

how the goal was to work with the naysayers. Luke said,  

When someone was being more of a barrier than a solution to the process, we often 

recruited them onto our committee. This was an effective way of guiding them onto our 

side. They had good ideas that helped shape the process and what they were arguing 

about was, often a very small issue. 

Mary echoed Luke’s sentiment about winning over the naysayers, saying, 

I mean, personality is always challenging, right? Assessment is never super popular with 

people. I think we won some hearts and minds because I think we've done really good 

104 

 
 
work and I think there's some people who are absolutely getting it and seeing 

improvements. These people who are won over, can be the biggest champions moving 

forward. 

Stripping conflict of the personal nature and then recruiting those naysayers seemingly allowed 

GCC to diagnose and solve future conflicts and resistance more easily. 

Securing Resources 

One of the most important determinants of success for any institutional change initiative, 

such as GCC’s SLO assessment shift, is having adequate monetary resources. Community 

colleges are in the midst of a monumental long-term decline in enrollment, which has led to ever 

scarcer resources (Marcus, 2023). There are many ways to go about securing resources for an 

institutional project, each way potentially relying on a single or multiple frames. Typically, 

securing funding for official projects requires an official process (i.e., the structural frame) to be 

utilized. There are also less formal methods of resource attainment employed including relying 

on relationships (i.e., the human resource frame), and leveraging power and influence (i.e., the 

political frame). Several participants shared the importance and difficulty of obtaining adequate 

resources to achieve the ends of GCC’s SLO assessment change initiative, which seemed to be a 

mix of the STHRPL frames. On the importance of having a direct relationship with resource 

allocators, Mary said,  

If I hadn't changed positions (now VP), it would have been really, really critical that I 

continue to have alignment with folks who have the ability to resource a project. Being 

able to leverage positive relationships into project funding was and is crucial. 

Mark was even more specific regarding the relationships most important to funding saying,  

105 

 
 
 
Both the President and Provost were very supportive of the process. The President was 

particularly supportive. Through those relationships we were good at getting the 

necessary resources. For example, we were able to get release time for faculty and we 

were able to create a tech position to create customized software for us. 

Not only was obtaining resources an important step for GCC’s success in implementing the SLO 

assessment initiative, but finding ways to conserve or save resources was equally important. 

Luke shared how GCC was able to conserve resources saying, “We utilized student help through 

internships, which was a money saver for us. We then parlayed that intern into a full-time 

position upon graduation, which saved money in training and getting them up to speed on the 

duties.” By recognizing the importance, not only of the formal structures necessary to obtain 

resources, but also the human resource and political aspects of resource attainment, GCC was 

able to gather the necessary resources to continue moving the initiative in a positive direction. 

Combination: Structural, Human Resource, and Symbolic 

The next meaningful combination revealed through participant interviews included the 

structural, human resource, and symbolic frames (STHRSY). The experiences conveyed by GCC 

faculty and staff in this section seem to show various individuals utilizing one or more of the 

three frames (STHRSY) to make sense of and successfully navigate the scenarios discussed. As 

discussed in the previous section, Bolman and Deal (2017) state these frames are not mutually 

exclusive, so it is possible for two individuals working together to solve the same problem to 

frame the problem–and potential solution–using a different frame or frames. Pertaining to the 

combination of STHRSY, one theme emerged amongst participants, and that theme was coded as 

(a) creating a culture of assessment. The following subsection provides greater detail on this 

theme. 

106 

 
 
Creating a Culture of Assessment 

The concept of creating a culture of assessment is repeated in the literature ad nauseam, 

however, creating a culture is not something easily prescribed or repeated. According to Weiner 

(2009) there are, however, certain institutional attitudes and behaviors connected with 

particularly successful cultures of assessment. Weiner’s (2009) list of institutional attitudes and 

behaviors include things like common use of assessment terms, ongoing professional 

development, faculty ownership, administrative support, and several others. Looking at one of 

these institutional behaviors–ongoing professional development–one can easily see shades of the 

STHRSY frames. For example, the structural frame must be leveraged to create formal and 

ongoing professional development sessions. The ties between professional development and the 

human resource frame are very clear because the goal of professional development is to grow the 

knowledge and understanding of personnel. Lastly, the ongoing nature and sense of comradery 

found in effective professional development, which is indicative of the symbolic frame, can 

create a ritualistic aspect to the assessment practices. Leaders at GCC knew creating a culture of 

assessment was important, but they had to experiment with many different methods to find the 

most effective way to establish and sustain said culture. Mary stated,  

As cliche as it sounds, success has and always will be the development of a culture of 

assessment. For me, this is when systematic conversations about teaching and learning 

are happening within the faculty to make and drive better instruction.”   

In the end, GCC seemed to rely heavily on the creation of rituals to establish their own culture of 

assessment.  

Speaking to the development of a culture of assessment, Mark stated, “I think it really 

started when we adopted our learning framework and began aligning our programs to our 

107 

 
 
learning framework. We now have a graphic organizer that demonstrates what we are trying to 

accomplish.” Once a mental model was established making it easier for everyone on campus to 

understand the overarching goals of the assessment changes, Jenny felt understanding faculty’s 

current wants and needs helped solidify the creation of the culture of assessment. Jenny said,  

We tend to be people that will listen, so we ask our colleagues how they feel about the 

changes and the new processes. The coaches meet every single week, so we take what we 

heard from our departments and use that input to plan worthwhile assessment activities. I 

think we've started to shift the culture to people valuing the assessment process and 

activities. 

Active listening and responding to the wants and needs of faculty involved in these assessment 

changes seems to have strengthened the culture of assessment at GCC. 

In an attempt to solidify their culture of assessment at GCC, assessment leaders 

established Teaching and Learning Days, which, according to Mark, created opportunities for 

“guided meaning-making.” On the creation of Teaching and Learning Days, Mary alluded to the 

use of the structural frame stating, “We utilized governance to establish these two professional 

learning days per year dedicated to assessment.” Mary wasn’t the only person who implied the 

importance of the structural frame when trying to establish a culture of assessment. Referring to 

the establishment of Teaching and Learning Days, Mark stated, “These are contracted and 

mandatory days for faculty that we use to conduct what we call ‘closing the loop 

conversations.’” While a culture of assessment can become self-perpetuating, it doesn’t 

necessarily start out that way, which GCC seemed to recognize and they addressed this by 

relying on formal structures. The experiences outlined in this section highlight the importance of 

108 

 
 
the interplay between the STHRSY frames, and how GCC successfully used these frames to 

establish their own culture of assessment. 

Combination: Structural, Human Resource, Political, and Symbolic 

The final combination described by multiple participants included all four frames 

(STHRPLSY). The experiences discussed in this section describe times where participants are 

viewing the situation and behaving in ways which leverage aspects of all four of Bolman and 

Deal’s (2017) frames. To reiterate an important point touched upon in previous sections, these 

frames are not mutually exclusive, so it is possible for two individuals working together to solve 

the same problem to frame the problem–and potential solution–using a different frame or frames. 

Regarding the STHRPLSY combination, two major themes emerged from participant interviews, 

and they were coded as (a) common understanding through communication and (b) faculty 

coaching model. 

Common Understanding Through Communication 

When implementing large-scale change within an organization, especially when there are 

heterogeneous groups working in collaboration, building shared or common understanding is 

crucial for success (Christiane Bittner & Leimeister, 2014). While building a shared 

understanding is clearly important to the success of a change initiative, there are almost an 

infinite amount of ways to approach building this shared understanding. For example, 

organizations may leverage formal communications like marketing campaigns or press releases, 

which leverage the structural and symbolic frames. To the same end, an organization may rely 

more heavily on informal communications to build shared understanding, like hallway 

conversations to recruit supporters, which relies more on the human resource and political 

frames. Effective change initiatives, like the one undertaken at GCC, utilizes multiple 

109 

 
 
 
approaches to create a common understanding spanning all four of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) 

frames. Leadership at GCC, along with rank and file supporters of the assessment changes, 

seemed to be keenly aware and intentional about the need to undertake a multifaceted approach 

to create a shared understanding of the proposed changes to assessment.  

Regarding the attempt to create shared understanding, Jenny said, 

That was very intentional. The coaches, every single week, talked to our departments. We 

tend to be people that will listen, so we ask and solicit. We keep our ears to the ground to 

find out what people are saying. We plan occasional group emails, we talk about who 

needs help. We talk about who's been collecting a lot of artifacts and is ready for our next 

assessment. We're always trying to think about where the opportunities are to connect 

with users. 

Beth shared her experiences around building common understanding and emphasized the 

informal communication channels saying, 

One of the strategies at the beginning of this involved Mary, Luke, and Susan spent a lot 

of time walking the halls and talking to people. Really just looking around and saying, 

“hey, do you have any questions about this too? Can we help understand? What do you 

think? Do you think it's a good idea?” Getting that input builds some goodwill, then when 

you have one side versus the other, it is much easier to talk and discuss the problem and 

move on. 

Beth went on to stress the importance of this informal method of creating common understanding 

saying, “I think faculty to faculty conversation is the most important. If you can have faculty 

who understand assessment and why we are doing it, it becomes easier to get them to put some 

effort in.” 

110 

 
 
 
Multiple participants discussed the importance of more formal efforts to build a common 

understanding of the assessment changes. Beth brought up the marketing efforts stating, 

We also had our marketing person who created really great communication materials for 

us. And in visual communication, which I think is really important, using a graphic 

organizer to represent the Learning Framework (a building with pillars) was hugely 

successful. Marketing took that concept and really brought it out into really good visual 

communication. 

Mark shared his thoughts on how he felt GCC was able to facilitate common understanding by 

stressing the importance of Teaching and Learning Days saying, 

I think that that's been really pivotal in terms of helping faculty to see the importance of  

assessment and the closing loop conversations. Leaders of Teaching and Learning Days 

act as thought partners, people who are a little bit more steeped in how to look at 

assessment data, how to interpret assessment data. And because it’s led by faculty 

coaches, it’s not the administration saying, “Hey, you're required to show up today.” It’s 

a peer saying, “We know what you do is important and we want to have these 

conversations with you about it.” 

Jenny felt the most important formal communication effort leading to GCC’s success was the 

faculty coaching model saying, 

There are key people on campus who need to buy in, and if they don't buy in, you can't 

really make any progress. By utilizing this coaching model we are able to find out who 

needs extra conversation about this? Who do you need to put in a position of influence? 

Who needs communication? 

On the importance and volume of communication, Jenny went on to say, 

111 

 
 
 
The communication has to be 10 times what you think it's going to be in order to be 

successful. I think it's leveraging your chairs to some extent. Using the chain of command 

to assist you. If you can't get the chairs to buy in, then you're not going to get anywhere. 

Jenny concluded her thoughts on creating common understanding by sharing a powerful thought 

saying, 

Faculty want to be trusted and recognized for their efforts. They are constantly improving 

their program and that they're constantly doing what's best for their students, but the old 

way of going about it is not quantifiable. Helping them to understand how these 

assessment changes can help to establish that trust and recognition. 

GCC’s use of multifaceted communication methods, which relied on all four of Bolman and 

Deal’s (2017) frames to build common understanding, seemed to be a key component to the 

success of implementing their institutional assessment changes. 

Faculty Coaching Model 

The final theme, and arguably most important to the success of GCC’s assessment change 

initiative, also involved all four of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) frames. The faculty coaching 

model was discussed positively and at length by every participant. The structural frame was seen 

in the creation of formal positions and the allocation of resources (i.e., faculty release time). The 

coaches were hand picked based on their existing relationships and upon their ability to cultivate 

positive working relationships, which is central to the human resource frame. Another reason 

these faculty were chosen was their existing positive reputations and their ability to deal with 

conflict. The combination of a good reputation and negotiation skills made these faculty 

members well-equipped to deal with challenges from the political frame, which were sure to 

come. Lastly, faculty coaches were chosen for their ability to effectively communicate, both 

112 

 
 
 
formally and informally, toward a shared understanding of the assessment changes they were 

attempting to facilitate. The responsibility of communicating the goals of the assessment change 

initiative is reflective of the symbolic frame. Regarding the creation of the faculty coaching 

model, Mary said, 

I couldn’t be in all places at all times, and pretending that faculty would just snap their 

fingers and get it done on their own is another problem with the expectations around 

assessment. It was clear we needed several key people working together to lead this and 

we needed resources. 

Being able to rely on trusted coworkers to conduct this important work by proxy allowed Mary 

to engage in higher-level strategic issues regarding the assessment changes. 

Beth spoke about how the faculty coaching model was one of the first things Mary 

initiated upon being hired as Assessment Coordinator saying,  

When she got the job I went right to her office and I said, “Hey, I've been part of the 

assessment committee and I've been really interested in this. I'm with you.  What can I do 

to help?” And she asked me how much release time I would need to really help. And she 

went and advocated for that release time to lighten my course load so that I could focus 

on the assessment work. And the same is true of Susan. Then Mary asked, “What are we 

going to call you?” We did things called boot camps for a little while, but we weren’t into 

the military metaphor, so we went with the title of coach and it took off from there. I 

think the title of coach really worked because it didn't feel like the administration saying, 

“You have to do this.” It felt like one of your peers saying, “Here's why I think it's 

important. Here's what I see here is what the potential is.” 

113 

 
 
 
The nearly universal agreement amongst participants regarding the positive impact of the faculty 

coaching model was clear throughout this study. 

While Luke agreed with others regarding the importance of the faculty coaching model, 

he recalled the time it took to get this model approved saying, “It didn’t happen overnight. It 

took an immense number of hours to finally convince our former administrator to allow for the 

release time.” Even though it took a great deal of time and effort, Mark explained why the wait 

was worth it saying, 

In the past there have been a great deal of challenges to get faculty to buy into the process 

of assessment. But, having these peer assessment coaches partner with faculty to assist on 

things like bringing courses or programs through our governance system, or leading 

teaching and learning days, brings credibility and buy-in to the entire process. 

Susan provided a similar view as Mark, focusing on the importance of the peer aspect of this 

model saying,  

If Mary were to be the person, or some other administrator saying, “Hey, come on in, sit 

down with me. Let's talk through this.” Do you think you would see the same success that 

you're seeing with the faculty coaching model? If it weren't faculty? No, you wouldn’t, 

and Mary would say the same thing. And also, Mary needs to be the authority. She needs 

to be able to tell the faculty, “You need to do this. Not participating is a breach of 

contract. This is something that you are required to do.” 

Susan described this dynamic–having faculty coaches leading the work and administrators acting 

as the authoritative force–as the strategic separation of powers.  

114 

 
 
 
Jenny also thought the faculty coaching model played a key role in successfully 

reimagining GCC’s assessment practices, however, she felt the coaches’ active and intentional 

communication was the key factor. Jenny said of the faculty coaching model,  

There are key people on campus who need to buy in, and if they don't buy in, you can't 

really make any progress. By having this coaching model, we were able to discuss 

questions like who needs extra conversation about this? Who do we need to put in a 

position of influence? Who needs the extra communication? We ended up leveraging our 

chairs to a large extent. If you can't get your chairs to buy in, then you're not going to get 

anywhere. 

 While participants may have viewed the importance of the faculty coaching model from 

different frames (i.e., allocation of resources, building buy-in through existing relationships, 

political capital of Mary and the coaches, or ability to communicate strategically), all of the 

participants agreed on the importance of this model to the success of this change initiative for 

GCC.  

Overarching Themes  

Over the last two chapters, many themes were presented showing how GCC integrated 

aspects of both Bolman and Deal (2017) and Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) models. During the data 

analysis stage, these many themes were coded once again and winnowed down into several 

inclusive and overarching themes. The results of this final round of coding yielded 3 themes, 

which were labeled (a) managing conflict and resistance, (b) the role of integrated leadership in 

driving change, and (c) building a culture of assessment through collaboration and inclusivity. 

These overarching themes will be discussed at length and situated within the larger context of 

higher education in the final chapter.  

115 

 
 
 
 
Summary 

Chapter 6 provided the results of participant interviews highlighting how Bolman and 

Deal’s (2017) four frames integrated, working at the same time. Not every possible combination 

of the four frames was presented, rather only a few of the combinations interpreted as vitally 

important to GCC’s success were presented. Those combinations were STHRPL, STHRSY, and 

STHRPLSY. Of particular importance to GCC’s success seemed to be the STHRPLSY 

combination, specifically the faculty coaching model program. All participants seemed to agree 

on the importance of the faculty coaching model to the success of the assessment change 

initiative. Chapter 6 ended by introducing the final overarching themes, which were derived by a 

final level of thematic coding taking into account themes from the four frames working in 

isolation and the four frames working in combination.  

116 

 
 
 
CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH 

Chapters 5 and 6 presented major themes derived from participant interviews explaining 

how GCC implemented organizational changes to improve their SLO assessment practices. The 

emergent themes from Chapters 5 and 6 were centered around the initial research question, 

specifically, how did one successful community college implement and sustain the use of SLO 

assessment data to improve institutional quality? This final chapter provides a summary of the 

study, a discussion of the major findings, the implications for practice, and the implications for 

future research.  

Summary of Study 

For decades, HEIs have attempted to measure SLOs, yet there is much difficulty finding 

effective ways to do so (Hegji, 2017; McLendon et al., 2006). Institutions have even more 

difficulty finding meaningful ways to use the SLO data collected to make impactful changes 

(Blaich & Wise, 2011). Institutions engaging in assessment related activities that produce non-

actionable data are likely wasting resources and diminishing morale among faculty and staff 

(Baker et al., 2012). In a time of increasing scrutiny and doubt around the value of higher 

education, institutions—particularly scarcely resourced community colleges—cannot afford to 

continue pouring resources into SLO assessment activities only to obtain non-actionable results. 

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, I sought to answer how GCC found success in 

changing their SLO assessment processes to yield actionable data, from which to improve 

institutional outcomes. My original hypothesis was this case study would show evidence of 

GCC’s integration of some or all of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Four Frames Model when 

enacting their SLO assessment change initiative. I also hypothesized data would show an 

understanding amongst GCC’s assessment leaders—either stated or implied—of the three 

117 

 
 
distinct phases of organizational change and development in Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) Model of 

Organizational Change. 

In Chapter 3, I discussed the utilization of an interpretivist methodology, and the goal of 

this interpretivist work was to discover how this institution managed to implement and sustain 

the use of SLO data to improve institutional quality by understanding the lived experience of the 

individuals tasked with planning and carrying out this change. The data collection procedure 

helped to unearth previously untold and firsthand interpretations of how GCC was able to change 

institutional assessment practices for the better. While the participants of this study are all unique 

individuals who experienced this change in different ways and with different motivations, there 

were clear similarities in their experience of this change initiative. These shared and impactful 

experiences were distilled through multiple levels of coding to produce themes, which were 

addressed in Chapters 5 and 6. Further analysis of the themes presented in Chapters 5 and 6 was 

conducted, which yielded three overarching themes dubbed (a) managing conflict and resistance, 

(b) the role of integrated leadership in driving change, and (c) building a culture of assessment 

through collaboration and inclusivity. The following section provides a discussion of the 

evidence (i.e., three overarching themes) of GCC utilizing both the conceptual and theoretical 

frameworks hypothesized at the beginning of this dissertation to successfully implement their 

SLO assessment changes, and how this contributes to current practice and future literature.  

Discussion 

The most significant finding in this study is evidence of GCC’s assessment leaders 

utilizing the frameworks from both Bolman and Deal (2017) and Ivancevich et al. (2014) in their 

successful SLO assessment change initiative. The assessment leaders of GCC may not have 

intentionally organized their efforts with these particular frameworks in mind, yet the evidence 

118 

 
 
 
collected in the participant interviews clearly applies to both proposed frameworks. In reviewing 

the extant literature, researchers have independently used both the Bolman and Deal (2017) Four 

Frames Model and Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) Model for Organizational Change, along with other 

similar theoretical models, to ground studies in higher education and organizational research 

(Birnbaum, 1988; Bolman & Gallos, 2011; Creswell J. W. & Creswell J. D., 2018; Kezar, 2014; 

Miller, 2003). So, seeing evidence of these models in use at GCC was not very surprising. What 

was surprising, was seeing such strong evidence for both models being used simultaneously by 

GCC to successfully organize and implement their SLO assessment change initiative, as was 

initially hypothesized.  

Evidence of the Effectiveness of Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks 

Metaphors are often helpful to convey complex information, and a fitting metaphor to 

convey the importance of the conceptual and theoretical frameworks of this study is construction. 

GCC’s desire to change their SLO assessment practices can be seen like the desire to construct a 

house. The theoretical framework—Ivancevich et al. (2014)—is the blueprint in this metaphor, 

governing what important structural components must be built to successfully complete the 

construction of the house. The conceptual framework—Bolman and Deal (2017)—is the tools 

necessary to carry out the construction.  

One of the main aspects of the Ivancevich et al. (2014) model I hypothesized would be 

evident within participant experiences was the impediments and limiting conditions. Within this 

portion of the model, Ivancevich et al. (2014) posits, regardless of the specific change initiative 

in question, the context around resistance to change, leadership climate, organizational culture, 

and the formal organization will determine the success or failure. The three overarching themes 

identified because of the overwhelming agreement of their importance among participants, were 

119 

 
 
managing conflict and resistance, the role of integrated leadership in driving change, and 

building a culture of assessment through collaboration and inclusivity. These three overarching 

themes map nearly exactly to three of the four contexts outlined by Ivancevich et al. (2014). 

Ivancevich et al.'s (2014) context named resistance to change aligns with the first overarching 

theme called managing conflict and resistance. The second of Ivancevich et al.'s (2014) contexts, 

referred to as leadership climate, aligns with the second overarching theme called the role of 

integrated leadership in driving change. The third of Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) contexts, named 

organizational culture, aligns with the third overarching theme named building a culture of 

assessment through collaboration and inclusivity. The fourth context, formal organization, was 

not represented overtly in the three overarching themes, however, shades of this context can be 

seen in how GCC utilized the organizational structure and systems of control to implement the 

faculty coaching model. 

Evidence of GCC utilizing Bolman and Deal’s (2017) frames both in isolation and in an 

integrated manner was discussed at length in Chapters 5 and 6. However, addressing how GCC 

used the four frames in conjunction with Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model to tackle the three 

overarching themes is important. The first overarching theme identified by participants in this 

study, managing conflict and resistance, directly relates to Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) context of 

managing conflict. To address this context, GCC leaders attempted to leverage relationships first 

(i.e., human resources frame), but when existing relationships were not enough to move past the 

conflict, they relied on the formalized rules, which were agreed upon using shared governance 

(i.e., structural frame). Such actions exemplify how GCC applied Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four 

frames to address specific impediments and limiting conditions outlined in Ivancevich et al.'s 

(2014) model of organizational change and development.  

120 

 
 
The second overarching theme outlined in this study, the role of integrated leadership in 

driving change, directly relates to Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) context of leadership climate. The 

entirety of Chapter 6 discusses how assessment leaders at GCC understood every change they 

asked faculty and staff to make had the potential to be interpreted differently by every individual 

involved. As Dougherty and Townsend (2006) explained, no two HEIs are alike, and that is 

especially true for community colleges, which often serve multiple missions. This study 

suggests, first and foremost, assessment leaders must seek to understand their own institutional 

context so they can successfully integrate Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames effectively. In 

fact, thematic analysis showed participants describing experiences which mapped to 10 of 11 

possible combinations of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames. This integrated leadership, 

described by participants, seems to have provided an element of sustainability for this change 

initiative by offering multiple potential solutions to address issues with implementation. 

The third overarching theme outlined in this study, building a culture of assessment 

through collaboration and inclusivity, directly relates to Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) organizational 

culture. As Kinzie (2015) notes, the importance of collaboration and inclusivity to the success of 

assessment activities cannot be overstated. Institutions who create and implement new SLO 

assessment practices through an intentionally collaborative and inclusive process, build stronger 

links between all areas of the academic mission and the SLO assessment process (Kinzie, 2010). 

GCC utilized a multifaceted approach to building a culture of assessment by leveraging the 

curriculum committee, faculty coaching model, and reframing communication of assessment. 

The curriculum committee was described by several participants as the most important 

committee at GCC and was made up of an intentionally diverse and interdisciplinary set of 

members. The formalized power of this group (i.e., structural and political frames) along with the 

121 

 
 
inclusivity and representation of the entire institution (i.e., human resource and symbolic frames) 

were fundamental in garnering buy-in and building a sustainable culture of assessment at GCC. 

Another way GCC successfully built a culture of assessment was by implementing the faculty 

coaching model. In order to help faculty begin to measure and use SLO data in decision making, 

peers who were familiar with the new assessment processes were selected and provided with 

release time (i.e., structural frame) to drive the process. Having funding for assessment activities 

allowed GCC to leverage the structural frame by creating paid roles to accomplish their goals. 

The faculty coaches were selected based on their knowledge of assessment and their ability to 

influence others (i.e., human resource frame). The faculty coaching model was unanimously 

perceived as a positive factor in GCC’s success. 

The nature of the evidence seems to suggest the findings—utilizing both Ivancevich et al. 

(2014) and Bolman and Deal (2017) to implement and sustain SLO assessment change 

initiatives—may be more generalizable than initially assumed. Portions of Ivancevich et al.’s 

(2014) model, specifically impediments to change, seem to be broadly applicable, and may help 

other institutions who are similar to GCC. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames are a bit more 

specific, in that, while it is likely any institution implementing a similar organizational change 

will utilize many combinations of the frames, the specific institutional context will drive which 

combinations are most effective. Utilizing one framework and not the other may yield partial 

results. For example, an institution may have a firm understanding of their historical context and 

know when and in what combination to utilize Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames to address 

what Ivancevich et al. (2014) calls resistance to change. However, if the institution is not aware 

of the issues of leadership climate and organizational culture outlined by Ivancevich et al. 

(2014), the change initiative will likely see significant challenges. On the other hand, an 

122 

 
 
institution may be aware they need to address Ivancevich et al.’s issues of leadership climate, 

resistance to change, and organizational culture, but are not looking at these issues through all 

four of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) frames, and may not be utilizing the most appropriate means 

of implementing the change initiative. This institution would likely see significant challenges as 

well. What I believe can be generalized to similar institutions who are going through an 

organizational change similar to the one faced by GCC is to look to Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) 

model of organizational change and development as a blueprint for understanding likely 

impediments, and to look to Bolman and Deal (2017) four frames for the tools to overcome those 

impediments. 

Implications for Practice 

While this study is about one specific institution, there are broader implications 

pertaining to SLO assessment within higher education. This study can be used to help guide 

institutions similar to GCC move toward an understanding of how to implement effective SLO 

assessment practices and use the subsequent data to improve. In the following section, I provide 

three implications for practice within higher education, which are based upon the three 

overarching themes found in the data. First, institutions should establish a structure of peer 

faculty support for the initiative to combat conflict and resistance. Second, institutions should 

provide training and professional development for leaders focusing on Bolman and Deal’s (2017) 

four frames and how these frames can be effectively leveraged to address Ivancevich et al.’s 

(2014) impediments and limiting conditions. Lastly, institutions should overtly connect all levels 

of learning outcomes to the institutional mission to lay a foundation for building a culture of 

assessment. 

123 

 
 
 
Implication for Managing Conflict and Resistance 

What was abundantly clear from the interviews in this study was how faculty coaches 

were the most effective means of assuaging resistance to this change initiative. Faculty peer 

support helps create an environment where individuals feel more comfortable engaging in new 

initiatives because trust and credibility are often established more quickly among colleagues 

(Kezar, 2014). Kezar’s (2014) book goes on to suggest grassroots change efforts led by peers are 

perceived as more authentic and less hierarchical, which can reduce resistance and make faculty 

more likely to be open to and engaged in institutional change efforts. The success of faculty-

supported initiatives is likely due to the fact that faculty peers understand the unique challenges 

and concerns that come with teaching responsibilities. Faculty supporters are better suited to 

present new initiatives to other faculty in familiar language and from a shared perspective as 

opposed to a mandate from administrators. Also, reluctant faculty are more receptive to ideas 

presented by others who share similar professional experiences and values (Austin, 2011; 

Guskey, 2002). 

Despite their success, resistance to change at GCC was not entirely eliminated. Faculty 

concerns about workload, loss of autonomy, and the perceived redundancy of assessment efforts 

persisted throughout the implementation. Addressing the resistance required both structural and 

relational strategies, highlighting the multifaceted nature of change management in higher 

education and the usefulness of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) frames. Resistance to change often 

manifests in different ways, from outright opposition to more passive disengagement. At GCC, 

resistance fell into three primary categories. The first resistance category was philosophical 

resistance where some faculty members viewed SLO assessment as an externally imposed 

bureaucratic exercise rather than a tool for improving teaching and learning. The second 

124 

 
 
resistance category was cultural resistance where GCC’s history of assessment failures had 

created a climate of skepticism, making it difficult to establish trust in any new process. The 

third category of resistance was practical resistance where faculty workload concerns, lack of 

training, and fear of punitive use of assessment data drove hesitancy. Both assessment leaders 

and faculty coaches recognized the resistance to SLO changes was taking different forms. This 

understanding allowed GCC to tailor the response strategies where faculty coaches tended to 

address philosophical concerns by reframing the narrative around assessment from a compliance 

activity to a means of improving student success. Assessment leaders addressed the practical 

resistance by instituting annual assessment training and creating the faculty coaching role to 

relieve some of the burden from faculty.  

Resistance to change is not merely an intellectual or procedural challenge. Often, 

particularly in the case of GCC, resistance is deeply emotional. Faculty members may experience 

anxiety, frustration, or resentment when faced with change, particularly when past initiatives 

have failed or felt forced. At GCC, historical grievances about ineffective assessment practices 

contributed to a negative perception of the new initiative. The faculty coaching model, again, 

played a large role in addressing the emotional barriers presented by reluctant faculty. Coaches 

relied on active listening and validation of concerns, while demonstrating a commitment to 

righting past wrongs. Once they found some early successes, coaches utilized these successes to 

build credibility for the process. Lastly, coaches focused on having clear and consistent 

communication to ensure ongoing transparency with the change process.  

Based on the success of GCC’s faculty coaching model and other supporting scholarship, 

establishing a structure of peer faculty support as early as possible is a critical strategy for 

combating conflict and resistance to institutional change. By leveraging the trust and credibility 

125 

 
 
among colleagues, faculty peer support can reduce resistance and increase willingness to 

participate in new initiatives. The ability of faculty to communicate in familiar and relatable 

terms can ensure new ideas are effectively conveyed and embraced, enhancing overall 

receptiveness to institutional changes. Together, these benefits underscore the importance of 

investing in peer support structures to help bring sustainable positive change. 

Implication for the Role of Integrated Leadership in Driving Change 

The importance of assessment leaders at GCC’s ability to adapt during the 

implementation of SLO assessment changes, using multiple combinations of Bolman and Deal’s 

(2017) four frames to address Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) impediments and limiting conditions, 

cannot be overstated. In Reframing Academic Leadership, Bolman and Gallos (2011) apply the 

four frames specifically to higher education, arguing academic leaders benefit from 

understanding and applying these frames. They emphasize colleges and universities are complex 

and ambiguous institutions, where challenges often require multi-faceted solutions. This 

literature suggests academic leaders who can shift between different frames are better equipped 

to manage change, resolve conflicts, and inspire faculty and staff. Further, Kezar and Eckel 

(2002) discuss the importance of using multiple perspectives, like those offered by Bolman and 

Deal’s model, when managing organizational change in higher education. They note successful 

change efforts often require understanding structural processes, human relationships, political 

dynamics, and the culture of an institution. The success of the initiative hinged not only on the 

strategic application of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames but also on the leaders’ ability to 

recognize and mitigate Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) impediments and limiting conditions.  

Ivancevich et al., (2014) highlight leadership climate as a critical factor in successful 

organizational change. Leadership climate significantly impacts how faculty and staff respond to 

126 

 
 
change efforts. At GCC, the leadership climate was carefully cultivated to foster collaboration 

and engagement, while minimizing resistance. This aligns with Kezar and Eckel’s (2002) 

argument that transformational change in higher education requires leaders who understand 

institutional culture and use multiple leadership perspectives to engage faculty and staff. One of 

the critical aspects of GCC’s leadership approach was its emphasis on adaptive leadership. 

Assessment leaders recognized that rigid, top-down mandates often fail in higher education, and 

had failed for GCC in the past. Instead, they adopted a flexible leadership model that allowed for 

distributed leadership, in which authority and responsibility were shared. This distributed 

leadership approach allowed faculty coaches to take ownership of assessment initiatives, thereby 

reducing resistance and increasing buy-in. This result is in line with Kezar’s (2014) findings that 

when faculty perceive leadership as inclusive and participatory, they are more likely to embrace 

change initiatives.  

Research suggests Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames, along with Ivancevich et al.’s 

(2014) model, serve as an effective tool for leaders in higher education. This dissertation along 

with past literature referenced in the previous paragraph, suggests training academic leaders in 

these models can improve their ability to understand and manage the complexities of their 

institutions, making them more adaptable and strategic in addressing challenges like the ones 

presented by implementing SLO assessment changes. It can be common for leaders in higher 

education to climb the ranks without formal training in organizational change or leadership 

theories. As a result, these leaders may struggle to manage complex institutional changes 

effectively. To address this potential pitfall, institutions should invest in professional 

development programs that train leaders in applying Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames and 

Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model of organizational change to real-world challenges. By equipping 

127 

 
 
leaders with the ability to analyze situations through different frames and an understanding of 

common impediments or limiting conditions, institutions can foster a more flexible and 

responsive environment for implementing large-scale changes. Other institutions looking to 

implement similar changes would be wise to prioritize professional development and training for 

institutional leaders to ensure they understand the importance of integrated leadership in driving 

institutional change. The training should focus on several key concepts. First, situational 

leadership training can teach leaders to assess different contexts and apply the appropriate 

leadership frame or frames. Conflict resolution and negotiation training can help to address 

resistance effectively without escalating tensions. Change management strategies can help to 

prepare leaders to anticipate and overcome common barriers to change. Lastly, faculty 

engagement techniques can help leaders to understand the motivational factors that drive faculty 

participation in change initiatives like the one in this study. Utilizing Ivancevich et al.’s 

impediments and limiting conditions to build scenarios where leaders must deploy Bolman and 

Deal’s (2017) frames strategically could serve as very effective training content.  By prioritizing 

integrated leadership strategies, institutions can increase their capacity for continuous 

improvement, ensuring assessment practices lead to meaningful and sustainable institutional 

change.  

Implication for Building a Culture of Assessment Through Collaboration and Inclusivity 

Assessment leaders at GCC understood how complex SLO assessment can be having 

multiple levels of learning outcomes to measure simultaneously. Having an organizing principle, 

from which all learning outcomes flowed back to, was very important for leadership. In GCC’s 

case, they relied on the institutional mission as their assessment lodestar. Connecting learning 

128 

 
 
 
outcomes directly to the institutional mission fosters a sense of shared purpose and aligns 

assessment efforts with the values of the institution.  

It should be noted, the connection between institutional mission and institutional culture 

is complex. Institutional culture can be viewed as an iceberg floating in the ocean. There is a 

portion of the iceberg or institutional culture that can be seen above the water, which, in this 

case, would be the institution’s stated mission. Institutions often publicize their mission and try 

to ensure all decisions are made in furtherance of said mission. However, there is also a larger 

portion of the iceberg under the water. Under the water is where the unstated portions of the 

institutional culture play out. Political battles and jockeying for power occur in this realm, and 

there may be times when some parties involved in these struggles work in direct opposition to 

the stated mission. Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Four Frames can be highly effective during times 

of infighting, as evidence by GCC in Chapters 5 and 6. The fact that an institution’s stated 

mission is only a small portion of the overall culture should not deter an institution from seeking 

to rely on the stated mission as the backbone of the culture.  

When stakeholders—such as faculty, staff, and administrators—see how their work 

contributes to broader institutional mission or goals, they are more likely to be invested in 

assessment initiatives. Research shows stakeholder buy-in is critical for the success of 

assessment practices, as it increases motivation and ensures active participation across 

departments (Banta & Blaich, 2011). When assessment is perceived as meaningful and mission-

driven, faculty are more inclined to collaborate and contribute to a culture of continuous 

improvement. Moreover, connecting learning outcomes to the institutional mission encourages 

cross-departmental collaboration by emphasizing shared goals. This approach brings diverse 

groups together, fostering a more inclusive environment where ideas can be exchanged. 

129 

 
 
According to Kezar (2014), institutions that promote collaboration and alignment with the 

mission experience more cohesive and effective assessment processes. By framing assessment as 

a collective effort to advance the institution’s mission, departments are more likely to work 

together and share resources to improve student learning outcomes. 

Institutions looking to implement SLO assessment changes, like GCC, should start this 

process by connecting all learning outcomes to be assessed directly to the institutional mission. 

Research by Kuh, Jankowski, Ikenberry, and Kinzie (2014) highlights those institutions with a 

clear, mission-aligned assessment strategy are more successful in fostering an inclusive 

assessment culture. This initial step brings in stakeholders from all areas of the institution, 

fostering collaboration and inclusivity, and gets all parties to a shared understanding of why 

assessing SLOs is important to the institution. Drawing this connection between SLO assessment 

and mission can help to build the ever-elusive culture of assessment, which can help institutions 

sustain their assessment practices over time. One of the most significant challenges pertaining to 

SLO assessment is leadership turnover, which can disrupt assessment initiatives. Tying 

assessment to the mission is one way of building sustainable assessment practices. Institutions 

can prioritize building assessment cultures that outlast individual leaders by integrating 

assessment expectations into strategic plans, accreditation frameworks, and faculty governance 

structures (Kinzie, 2015). When institutions commit to these principles, assessment moves 

beyond compliance-driven exercises and becomes a transformative tool for institutional 

improvement.  

Implications for Future Research 

Because scant evidence exists on how institutions get to a point where they are using 

SLO data to improve, this study acts as merely a starting point, from which future researchers 

130 

 
 
 
must examine further. Exploratory studies like this one often come with many limitations, which 

I discussed in Chapter 3, and I believe the future research discussed below highlights and 

addresses some of those limitations. Specifically, I propose three avenues of future inquiry: 

comparative studies of successful and unsuccessful institutions, longitudinal studies to 

understand the long-term sustainability of SLO assessment initiatives, and student perspectives 

and influence on SLO assessment. 

Comparing Successful and Unsuccessful Institutions 

Understanding how and why GCC was able to successfully implement SLO assessment 

changes, which is what this study attempted to do, is an important first step. Some institutions, 

like GCC, successfully use SLO data to drive meaningful improvements in teaching and 

learning, while others face persistent challenges, including resistance from faculty, a lack of 

alignment with institutional goals, and limited capacity to analyze and act on assessment findings 

(Ewell, 2011). Understanding how and why other institutions were unsuccessful in their attempts 

at implementing similar changes could prove to be just as valuable as understanding the 

successes. Future research could examine whether the use of the contextual and theoretical 

frameworks put forth in this study plays a significant role in these differences. My study posits 

Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Four Frames Model provides an effective lens for understanding how 

structural, human resource, political, and symbolic factors interact to influence institutional 

success in implementing change. Institutions that effectively use SLO data may be those that 

approach the process adaptively, leveraging these frames to address organizational complexity 

and foster collaboration and inclusivity. Similarly, the theoretical framework in this study, 

Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) model of organizational change, provides insights into how leadership, 

communication, and organizational culture shape the effectiveness of change initiatives. A 

131 

 
 
 
working hypothesis could be that successful institutions are—knowingly or unknowingly—

utilizing these frameworks to implement their SLO assessment change initiatives compared to 

their unsuccessful counterparts. 

This proposed research is important because it would further illuminate potential causal 

factors driving both success in implementing the use of SLO data. While much has been written 

about the challenges of implementing SLO assessment, fewer studies focus on comparative 

analysis to identify factors that lead to success. Additionally, linking these outcomes to specific 

frameworks, like I did in this study, could provide a more solid theoretical foundation for 

understanding the mechanisms of success. Institutions could use these insights to design more 

effective strategies for assessment implementation. 

Long-Term Sustainability of SLO Assessment Initiatives 

The large-scale practice of measuring SLOs is, relatively speaking, new in higher 

education. Using the SLO data to drive institutional improvement, which is what this study 

focuses on, is an even newer concept. As the scholarship around implementing the use of SLO 

data to inform decisions continues to grow, we must simultaneously grow our understanding of 

how institutions can effectively sustain these practices. Institutions often struggle to maintain 

momentum in assessment practices due to things like leadership turnover, shifting priorities, 

resource constraints, and changing expectations from stakeholders (Ewell, 2011). Future research 

on long-term sustainability of SLO assessment practices could build upon the findings from this 

study by understanding how the initial successes translate into lasting practices. A working 

hypothesis could be institutions who show evidence of utilizing Bolman and Deal’s (2017) and 

Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) models to implement their SLO changes are more likely to sustain 

these practices over time than institutions who do not.  

132 

 
 
 
One way to draw an understanding of long-term success of SLO assessment initiatives 

could be to conduct longitudinal analysis comparing institutions who show evidence of using the 

theoretical and contextual frameworks to implement their SLO assessment practices and those 

who do not. This research could not only lend support to the idea that Bolman and Deal’s (2017) 

and Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) models are effective tools for the implementation of SLO 

assessment changes, but could also examine these models’ ability to create institutional systems 

that are resilient to future changes or challenges. For example, institutions that embed SLO 

assessment practices into the culture, align them in strategic planning, and institutionalize 

adaptability in leadership development may be more successful in the long-term. On the other 

hand, institutions that view assessment as a compliance task foisted upon them, may see issues in 

sustaining these practices, especially when there are leadership changes or other competing 

priorities.  

Understanding Student Perspectives and their Influences on SLO Assessment 

Of utmost importance, yet frequently overlooked, student perceptions of SLO assessment 

present a potentially valuable avenue for future research. Understanding how students perceive 

the purpose and value of SLO assessment and how these perceptions affect their engagement 

with the SLO activities is crucial to the success of any SLO assessment change initiative. A 

working hypothesis for this research is students who perceive SLO assessment as aligned with 

their educational and professional goals are more likely to engage meaningfully in these 

activities compared with students who do not see alignment with their goals or do not understand 

SLO assessment.  

The idea that students are more likely to engage with educational activities if they have a 

positive perception of the activity is not new (Kuh, 2008). If students understand the various 

133 

 
 
 
 
levels of SLOs they are expected to achieve and see them as connected to their academic and 

professional goals, they are more likely to engage in learning activities and assessments aligned 

with these SLOs. On the other hand, if they see SLOs and assessments as disconnected from 

their goals, they will be less likely to meaningfully engage. Another reason why this topic is 

important to understand is because higher education—as a whole—places a high value on equity 

and inclusion. Understanding students’ current perspectives of SLO assessment and its 

connection to their goals is the first step toward equity and inclusion in the SLO assessment 

process, but it can only be obtained by treating students as stakeholders in the assessment 

process. I believe institutions who view students as stakeholders and take the time to understand 

their perceptions of the institutional SLOs and assessment practices will see one of three 

outcomes. First, institutions may find their SLOs and assessment practices are aligned with 

student goals, and students understand this alignment. Having an understood alignment between 

SLOs and student goals would be the best scenario. Second, institutions may find their SLOs and 

assessment practices are not aligned with student goals and, obviously, there would be no 

understanding of alignment amongst students. Having no understood alignment between SLOs 

and student goals would be the worst scenario as the institution would need to radically re-

evaluate their mission and purpose. Lastly, institutions may find their SLOs and assessment 

practices are aligned with student goals, but students do not fully understand or value this 

alignment. Although such a gap in understanding is not ideal, it is a common challenge for many 

institutions. Many institutions struggle with developing an understanding amongst faculty and 

staff of how and why they need to measure and use SLO data (Elliott, 2015). Expecting students 

to have an understanding of how SLOs connect to their educational and professional goals when 

faculty and staff often do not have a clear understanding, is what makes me believe the last 

134 

 
 
scenario discussed above is the most likely for many HEIs. Institutions will only know which of 

the three scenarios they fall into if they include students as stakeholders in the SLO assessment 

process.   

Conclusion 

Effective assessment of SLOs and the subsequent use of the data to drive institutional 

improvement has been a major challenge for the few institutions who have been persistent 

enough to attempt it. Those who have attempted, have had varying degrees of success, yet no 

institution has perfected this monumental task. The findings of this study underscore the great 

potential and critical need for effectively using SLO data in driving institutional improvement 

within community colleges. Through an in-depth case study of a single community college’s 

(GCC) success, this research highlighted the multifaceted challenges and opportunities 

associated with implementing and sustaining data-driven SLO assessment processes. The data 

from this case study revealed the application of Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Four Frames Model 

and Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) Model of Organizational Change was central to their success. To 

implement and sustain this change initiative, GCC focused on three overarching issues including 

managing conflict and resistance, the role of integrated leadership in driving change, and 

building a culture of assessment through collaboration and inclusivity. These three overarching 

issues aligned closely to the theoretical framework for this study, Ivancevich et al.’s (2014) 

Model of Organizational Change. GCC developed effective strategies to address the three 

overarching issues, which all showed alignment to the contextual framework for this study, 

Bolman and Deal’s (2017) Four Frames Model.  

The findings of this study show the need for expecting and being proactive with conflict 

and resistance to change. The use of faculty coaches as peer support and symbolic alignment of 

135 

 
 
 
all levels of learning outcomes back to the institutional mission were particularly helpful in 

reducing resistance and building trust among stakeholders. These strategies were not only helpful 

in the initial implementation of the assessment changes, but seem to be contributing to the 

longer-term sustainability of GCCs new assessment practices. The findings also underscored the 

importance of assessment leaders’ ability to adapt and integrate their leadership methods based 

on Bolman and Deal’s (2017) four frames. In general, administrators tried to rely on 

relationships and formal structures to implement the change initiative, however, these tactics 

were quickly adapted if necessary. The willingness and ability to adapt leadership methods 

proved to be particularly helpful. Lastly, the findings of this study underscore the need for 

community colleges to adopt systematic approaches that integrate assessment into the broader 

organizational structures and processes through inclusive processes. By integrating assessment 

into the broader organizational structures, institutions can help to build a culture of assessment 

where collecting and using SLO data to improve becomes second nature, instead of just a 

compliance activity.   

As the field of higher education continues to grapple with questions of perceived value, 

accountability, and equity, this study contributes to a growing body of knowledge on how SLO 

assessment can be effectively leveraged to address these challenges. However, this study also 

highlights the need for future research, particularly understanding why some institutions succeed 

while others fail to implement SLO assessment changes, the long-term impacts of these SLO 

assessment changes, and the perspectives of the most important stakeholders, students. By 

growing our understanding in these areas, future research can provide even more impactful 

suggestions for community colleges and other HEIs.   

136 

 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 

Alfred, R., Ewell, P., Hudgins, J., & McClenney, K. (1999). Core indicators of effectiveness for 
community colleges. Toward high performance. (Report No. 141). American Association 
of Community Colleges. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED426749.pdf 

Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and the management trap: How managers can know when 

they’re getting good advice and when they’re not. Oxford University Press. 

Association of American Colleges & Universities, (2016). Trends in learning outcomes 

assessment: Key findings from a survey among administrators at AAC&U member 
institutions. 
https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015_Survey_Report3.pdf 

Austin, A. E. (2011). Promoting evidence-based change in undergraduate science education. 

Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(3), 30-38. 

Average Community College Student Size. (n.d.). Retrieved from 

https://www.communitycollegereview.com/average-college-size-stats/national-data 

Baime, D., & Baum, S. (2016). Community colleges: Multiple missions, diverse student bodies, 

and a range of policy solutions. Retrieved from Urban Institute website: 
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000899-Community-
Colleges-Multiple-Missions-Diverse-Student-Bodies-and-a-Range-of-Policy-
Solutions.pdf 

Baker, G. R., Jankowski, N. A., Provezis, S., & Kinzie, J. (2012). Using assessment results: 

Promising practices of institutions that do it well. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and 
Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved 
from http://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/UsingAssessmentResults.htm 

Banta, T., & Blaich, C. (2011). Closing the assessment loop. Change: The Magazine of Higher 

Learning, 43(1), 22-27.   

Barrett, J. M. (2012). Writing assessment in the humanities: Culture and methodology. Journal 

of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 2(2), 171-195. 

Baxter, L. (1991). Content analysis. In B. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal 

interaction (pp. 239-254). Guilford Press. 

Beld, J. M. (2010). Engaging departments in assessing student learning: Overcoming common 

obstacles. Peer Review, 12(1), 6-9. 

Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and 

leadership. Jossey-Bass 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Blaich, C. F., & Wise, K. S. (2011, January). From gathering to using assessment results: 

Lessons from the Wabash inational study (NILOA Occasional Paper No. 8). University of 
Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. 
Retrieved from http://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/ 

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for Mastery. Instruction and curriculum. Regional education 

laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, topical papers and reprints, number 1. 
Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12. Retrieved from 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED053419.pdf 

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. 

Jossey-Bass. 

Bolman, L. G., & Gallos, J. V. (2011). Reframing academic leadership. Jossey-Bass. 

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research 

Journal, 9(2), 27-40. 

Bradbury, B. L., Halbur, K. V., & Halbur, D. A. (2011). Authority and leadership via a multiple 

frames approach. In A. Johnston & G. Johnston (Eds). Journal for the Philosophical 
Study of Education. AuthorHouse. 

Cain, T. R. (2014). Assessment and academic freedom: In concert, not conflict (NILOA 

Occasional Paper No. 22). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, 
National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from 
https://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/OP2211-17-14.pdf 

Carey, K., & Schneider, M. (2010). Accountability in American higher education. Palgrave 

MacMillan. 

Carnegie Classification (n.d.). Greenville Community College. Retrieved from 

https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/institution/greenville-community-college/ 

Chadi, A., Jeworrek, S., & Mertins, V. (2017, July 19). Meaningless work threatens job 

performance. [web log]. Retrieved from 
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2017/07/19/meaningless-work-threatens-job-
performance/ 

Chaplot, P. (2010). Implementation and sustainability of learning assessment efforts: Facilitators 

and inhibitors. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 17(2), 33-41. 

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative 

analysis. Sage Publishing. 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chen, Y., Shek, D. T. L., & Bu, F. (2011). Applications of interpretive and constructionist 

research methods in adolescent research: Philosophy, principles, and examples. 
International Journal of Adolescent Medical Health, 23(2), 129-139. 

Cherwin, K. A. (2013, March 14). How to foster motivation in an academic workplace. Higher 

Ed Jobs. Retrieved from 
https://www.higheredjobs.com/articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=416 

Christiane E. A.. & Leimeister, J. M. (2014, December 5). Creating shared understanding in 
heterogeneous work groups: Why it matters and how to achieve it. Journal of 
Management Information Systems, 31(1), 111-144. 

Colson, T., Berg. B., Hunt, T., & Mitchell, Z. (2017). Simple, transparent, and less burdensome: 

Re-envisioning core assessment at a regional public university. Journal of Assessment 
and Institutional Effectiveness, 7(1), 92-114. 

Community Colleges FAQs. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-

College-FAQs.html 

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for 

developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.  

Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2019). Accreditation and student learning 

outcomes: Perspectives from Accrediting Organizations (CHEA Publication No. 20). 
Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. 

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2012). Distinguishing formative assessment 

from other educational assessment labels. Retrieved from 
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/CCSSO_Assessment__Labels_Paper_ada_60
1108_7.pdf 

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed 

methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage. 

Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method 

research. Sage Publications. 

Crowell, T., & Calamidas, E. (2015). Comprehensive five-year program assessment study. 

Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 5(1), 1-33. 

Custer, S., King, E. M., Atinc, T. M., Read, L., & Sethi, T. (2018). Toward data-driven 

education systems: Insights into using information to measure results and manage 
change. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/toward-
data-driven-education-systems.pdf 

Denzin, N. K. (1986). Interpretive biography. Sage Publications.  

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dougherty, K. J., & Reddy, V. (2013). Performance funding for higher education: What are the 

mechanisms? What are the impacts? ASHE Higher Education Report, 39(2), 1-134. 

Dougherty, K. J., & Townsend, B. K. (2006). Community college missions: A theoretical and 

historical perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 136, 5-13.  

Driscoll, A., & Wood, S. (2007). Developing outcomes-based assessment for learning-centered 

education: A faculty introduction. Stylus Publishing. 

Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Oxford University Press. 

Drury, R. L. (2003). Community colleges in America: A historical perspective. Inquiry, 8(1), 1-

6. 

Elliott, R. W. (2015). Faculty development: An essential strategy to promote critical thinking in 

students. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 32(1), 36–49. Retrieved 
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1112487.pdf 

Ewell, P. T. (2011). Accountability and institutional effectiveness in the community college. 

New Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(153), 23-36. 

Ewell, P. T., & Jones, D. P. (2006). State-level accountability for higher education: On the edge 

of a transformation. New Directions for Higher Education, 135, 9-16. 

Excellence in Assessment (EIA) Designation. (n.d.). Retrieved from 

https://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/eia/#1564428314302-7a3fdaa8-a3b6 

Fain, P. (2018, March 2). Demonstrating value. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/02/author-discusses-new-book-
accountability-push-higher-education 

Fairchild, E. (2003). Multiple roles of adult learners. New Directions for Student Services, 102, 

11-16. 

Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage Publications. 

Fullan, M. (2004). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass. 

Gaff, J., & Meacham, J. (2006). Learning goals in mission statements: Implications for 

educational leadership. Liberal Education, 92(1), 6-13. 

Geiger, R.L. (2011). The ten generations in American higher education In P. G. Altbach, P. J. 

Gumport, & R. O. Berdahl (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century 
(pp. 37-68). Johns Hopkins University Press. 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ginder, S. A., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Mann, F. B. (2018, November). Postsecondary institutions 
and cost of attendance in 2017-18; degrees and other awards conferred, 2016-17; and 
12-month enrollment, 2016-17: First look (provisional data) (NCES 2018-060rev). 
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018060REV.pdf 

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson. 

Grupe, D. W., & Nitschke, J. B. (2013). Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: An integrated 

neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(7), 
488-501. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4276319/ 

Gustafsson, J. (2017). Single-case studies vs. multiple-case studies: A comparative study. 

Academy of Business, Engineering and Science, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden. 
Retrieved from www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1064378/FULLTEXT01.pdf  

Hamill, S. B. (2015). Evaluating and redesigning a college assessment system to close the loop. 

Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 5(1), 34-57. 

Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2014). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical 
perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. Routledge. 

Head, R. B. (2015). Evidence-based management and community college decision-making. 

Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 22(1), 25-33. 

Hegji, A. (2017). An overview of accreditation of higher education in the United States. 

(Congressional Research Service Rep. No. 7-5700). Retrieved from 
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43826.pdf 

Hernon, P., & Dugan, R.E. (2004). Outcomes assessment in higher education: Views and 

perspectives. Libraries Unlimited. 

Herriott, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983) Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing 

description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(2), 14-19. 

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. Wiley. 

HLC Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hlcommission.org/Policies/criteria-and-core-

components.html 

Holzweiss, P. C., Bustamante, R., & Fuller, M. B. (2016). Institutional cultures of assessment: A 

qualitative study of administrator perspectives. Journal of Assessment and Institutional 
Effectiveness, 6(1), 1-27. 

Hutchings, P., Kinzie, J., & Kuh, G. D. (2015). Evidence of student learning: What counts and 

what matters for improvement. In G. D. Kuh (Ed.), Using evidence of student learning to 
improve higher education (27-50). Jossey-Bass. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ikenberry, S. O., & Kuh, G. D. (2015). From compliance to ownership: Why and how colleges 
and universities assess student learning. In G. D. Kuh (Ed.), Using evidence of student 
learning to improve higher education (1-26). Jossey-Bass. 

Imel, S., Kerka, S., & Wonacott, M. E. (2002). Qualitative research in adult, career, and career-

technical education. Practitioner File. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, 
Career, and Vocational Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ 
ED472366.pdf 

Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2014). Organizational behavior and 

Management. McGraw-Hill. 

Jankowski, N. (2011). Juniata college: Faculty-led assessment. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois 
and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved 
from https://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/OP2211-17-14.pdf 

Jankowski, N., & Marshall, D. (2017). Degrees that matter: Moving higher education to a 

learning systems paradigm. Stylus Publishing. 

Jaschik, S. (2018, October 9). Falling confidence in higher ed. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/09/gallup-survey-finds-falling-
confidence-higher-education 

Jensen, D. (2006). Metaphors as a bridge to understanding educational and social contexts. 

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 36-54. 

Jones, J. M. (2018, October 9). Confidence in higher education down since 2015. [Gallup Polling 
Report]. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/242441/confidence-
higher-education-down-2015.aspx 

Jury, M., Smeding, A., Stephens, N., Nelson, J. E., Aelenei, C., & Darnon, C. (2017). The 

experience of low-SES students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success 
and interventions to reduce social-class inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 23-41. 

Kelchen, R. (2018). Higher education accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. 

Routledge. 

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). Examining the institutional transformation process: The 

importance of sensemaking, interrelated strategies, and balance. Research in Higher 
Education, 43(3), 295-328. 

Kinzie, J. (2010). Perspectives from campus leaders on the current state of student learning 

outcomes assessment: NILOA focus group summary 2009-2010. Urbana, IL: University 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. 
Retrieved from https://learningoutcomesassessment.org/documents/FocusGroupFinal.pdf 

Kinzie, J., Hutchings, P., & Jankowski, N. A. (2015). Fostering greater use of assessment results: 

Principles for effective practice. In G. D. Kuh (Ed.), Using evidence of student learning 
to improve higher education (51-72). Jossey-Bass. 

Kinzie, J., Jankowski, N., & Provezis, S. (2014). Do good assessment practices measure up to the 
principles of assessment? Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education, 26(3), 1-
5. 

Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: 

Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120-124. 
Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375092 

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage Publishing. 

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, 

and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. 

Kuh, G. D., & Ikenberry, S. O. (2009). More than you think, less than we need: Learning 

outcomes assessment in American higher education. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois 
and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved 
from https://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/niloafullreportfinal2.pdf 

Kuh, G. D., Jankowski, N., Ikenberry, S. O., & Kinzie, J. (2014). Knowing what students know 
and can do: The current state of student learning outcomes assessment in U.S. colleges 
and universities. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National 
Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Retrieved from 
https://www.learningoutcomeassessment.org/documents/2013%20Abridged%20Survey%
20Report%20Final.pdf 

Kuh, G. D., Ikenberry, S. O., Jankowski, N. A., Cain, T. R., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., & 
Kinzie, J. (2015). Using evidence of student learning to improve higher education. 
Jossey-Bass. 

Lansing Community College Program Accreditation. (n.d.). Retrieved from 

https://www.lcc.edu/about/accreditation/program.html 

Lederman, D. (2015, February 18). The new normal on completion. Inside Higher Ed.  

Lederman, D. (2018, October 31). Conflicted views of technology: A survey of faculty attitudes. 

Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from 
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/conflicted-views-technology-survey-
faculty-attitudes 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. 

Ma, J., & Baum, S. (2016, April). Trends in community colleges: Enrollment prices, student 

debt, and completion. (College Board Research Brief). Retrieved from 
https://research.collegeboard.org/pdf/trends-community-colleges-research-brief.pdf 

MacDonald, S. K., Williams, L. M., Lazowski, R. A., Horst, S. J., & Barron, K. E. (2014). 

Faculty attitudes toward general education assessment: A qualitative study about their 
motivation. Research & Practice in Assessment 9, 74-90. 

Manning, T. M. (2011). Institutional effectiveness as process and practice in the American 
community college. New Directions for Community Colleges 153, 13-21. 

Marchland, S., & Stoner, J. (2012). A brief history of accountability in higher education. Phi 

Kappa Phi Forum, 92(1), 16-18. 

Marcus, J. (2023, April 4). Community colleges are reeling. ‘The reckoning is here.’ The 
Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/community-college-enrollment-
bb2e79222a4374f4869dc2e5359f2043 

Markóczy, L. (2004). Multiple motives behind single acts of cooperation. The International 

Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 1018-1039. 

Martin, J. (2012). Symbols, sagas, rites, and rituals: An overview of organizational culture in 

libraries. College & Research Libraries News, 73(6). Retrieved from 
https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/8779/9345 

McCullough, C. A., & Jones, E. (2014). Creating a culture of faculty participation in assessment: 

Factors that promote and impede satisfaction. Journal of Assessment and Institutional 
Effectiveness, 4(1), 85-101. 

McLendon, M. K., Hearn, J. C., & Deaton, R. (2006). Called to account: Analyzing the origins 

and spread of state performance-accountability policies for higher education. Educational 
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(1), 1-24. 

Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. 

Jossey-Bass. 

Mikkelsen, M. F. (2018). Projects, success, and complexity. International Project Management 

Association Research Conference 2017. UTS ePRESS. 

Miller, M. T. (2003). Responding to competition: A governance strategy for public higher 

education. Information Age Publishing. 

Miller, R., & Leskes, A. (2005). Levels of assessment: From the student to the institution. 

Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Morest, V. S., & Jenkins, D. (2007). Institutional research and the culture of evidence at 

community colleges (Community College Research Center Rep. No. 1). Retrieved from 
https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/insitutional-research-culture-
evidence.pdf 

National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Fast facts. Retrieved from 

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84 

National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. (n.d.). Assessment Glossary. 

https://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NILOA-
Glossary.pdf 

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2017, June 12). Persistence and Retention: 
2017. Retrieved from https://nscresearchcenter.org/snapshotreport28-first-year-
persistence-and-retention/ 

Oltmann, S. M. (2016). Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer 

and respondent contexts. Qualitative Social Research, 17(2). Retrieved from 
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2551/3998 

Omisore, B. O., & Abiodun, A. R. (2014). Organizational conflicts: Causes, effects, and 

remedies. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management 
Sciences, 3(6), 118-137. Retrieved from 
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dc47/343acf285d3c6e7af9d5bb935981ac251c02.pdf 

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications. 

Petrides, L. A., & McClelland, S. I. (2007). Decentralizing data through decision-support 

systems: The impact of increased access to data on decision making. Journal of Applied 
Research in the Community College, 15(1), 7-15. 

Powell, C. (2013). Accreditation, assessment, and compliance: Addressing the cyclical 

challenges of public confidence in American education. Journal of Assessment and 
Institutional Effectiveness, 3(1), 54-74. 

Prasad, P. Crafting qualitative research: Working in the post-positivist traditions. M. E. Sharpe. 

Ramaley, J. (2012, March 2). Do college-completion rates really measure quality? The Chronicle 
of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Do-College-
Completion-Rates/131029 

Regoniel, P. (2012, November 5). What is the difference between the theoretical and the 

conceptual framework? Retrieved from https://fitness-gear-equipment.knoji.com/what-is-
the-difference-between-the-theoretical-framework-and-the-conceptual-framework/ 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rice, D. R. (1991). What every faculty development professional needs to know about higher 

education. To Improve the Academy, 226, 89-96. 

Rhodes, T. L. (2015). Assessment: Growing up is a many-splendored thing. Journal of 

Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 5(2), 101-116. 

Rosaen, S. F., Hayes, R. A., Paroske, M., & De La Mare, D. (2013). A dialogic approach to 
implementing general education assessment at the department level. Journal of 
Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 3(1), 33-53. 

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. 

Secolsky, C., & Denison, D. B. (2012). Improving institutional decision making through 

educational measurement, assessment, and evaluation. In C. Secolsky & D. B. Denison 
(Eds.), Handbook on measurement, assessment, and evaluation in higher education. 
Routledge. 

Scott, J. (1990). A matter of record. Polity Press. 

Serban, A. M. (2004). Assessment of student learning outcomes at the institutional level. New 

Directions for Community College, 126, 17–27. 

Sim, J., & Sharp, K. (1998). A critical appraisal of the role of triangulation in nursing research. 

International Journal of Nursing Studies, 35, 23-31.  

Sipe, L, and S Constable (1996). A chart of four contemporary research paradigms: Metaphors 

for the modes of inquiry. The Journal of Culture and Education 1, 153-63. 

Somerville, J. (2008). Critical factors affecting the assessment of student learning outcomes: A 
Delphi study of the opinions of community college personnel. Journal of Applied 
Research in the Community College, 15(2), 109-119. 

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications. 

Stassen, M. L. A. (2012). Accountable for what? Journal of Assessment and Institutional 

Effectiveness, 2(2), 137-142. 

Suskie, L. (2010, October 26). Why are we assessing? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from 
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/10/26/why-are-we-assessing 

Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Jossey-Bass. 

The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, (2010). Guiding principles for SLO 
assessment. Retrieved from https://www.asccc.org/sites/default/files/publications/SLO-
paper-Fall2010_0.pdf 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The State Higher Education System. (n.d.). Seamless Transfer Policy FAQs. Retrieved from 

https://system.shes.edu/academic-affairs/student-mobility/seamless-transfer-policy-
faqs/#:~:text=Resolved%20clause%20%23%207%20of%20the,programs%20shall%20re
quire%20no%20more 

Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative: Research methods in theses and 

dissertations. Sage Publishing. 

United States Department of Education. (n.d.). College scorecard. Retrieved from 

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?191199 

United States Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. 
higher education (Report No. ED-06-C0-0013). U.S. Department of Education. 

United States Department of Education. (2019). Accreditation handbook (34-CFR-602). U.S. 

G.P.O. 

van Esch, P., & van Esch, L. J. (2013). Justification of a qualitative methodology to investigate 
the emerging concept: The dimensions of religion as underpinning constructs for mass 
media social marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Theory and Practice, 1(2), 214-
243. 

Vannoni, M. (2014). What are case studies good for? Nesting comparative case study research 
into the lakatosian research program. Cross-Cultural Research, 49(4), 331-357. 

Walser, T. M. (2015). Evaluability assessment in higher education: Supporting continuous 

improvement, accountability, and a culture of assessment. Journal of Assessment and 
Institutional Effectiveness, 5(1), 58-77. 

Weiner, W. F. (2009) Establishing a culture of assessment: Fifteen elements of success–how 

many does your institution have? Fighting Back. Retrieved from 
https://www.aaup.org/article/establishing-culture-assessment 

William, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3-

14. 

Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. 

Sage Publishing. 

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publishing. 

Zubrow, J. (2012). Case study: Engaging adjunct faculty in program assessment. Journal of 

Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 2(1), 77-102. 

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Zumeta, W. M. (2011). What does it mean to be accountable? Dimensions and implications of 
higher education’s public accountability. The Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 131-
148. 

148 

 
 
 
 
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 

Introduction: The researcher will greet the participant and introduce himself. After ensuring the 
comfortability of the participant, the researcher will provide a brief personal background (MSU 
HALE doctoral student working to complete his dissertation, while also working at a community 
college as an instructor and assessment consultant).  

Purpose: The researcher will explain that the purpose of the study is to understand how a 
particular community college has implemented the use of student learning outcome assessment 
data to improve institutional quality. 

Procedures: The researcher will explain that open-ended questions will be asked of individual 
participants to understand their personal experiences. Interviews will last approximately one hour 
but could possibly go longer depending on how much information the participant chooses to 
share. Audio recordings of interviews will be transcribed upon the completion of the interviews 
and the text documents will be shared with the individual participants to check for accuracy. 
Once the data are collected, transcribed, and member-checked, all names and identifying 
information will be removed to protect the identity of the research participants. 

Consent: Participants will be urged only to share information they are comfortable sharing. 
Also, participants will be informed their identity will be protected by using pseudonyms and they 
will have the opportunity to choose their own pseudonym. If they choose not to provide a 
pseudonym, one will be selected for them by the researcher. Finally, participants will be 
reminded that they may end the interview or their overall participation in the study at any time. 

Dialogue: Preliminary interview questions (research instrument) are as follows:  

-Tell me about your tenure at the institution as it pertains to the issue of student learning 
outcomes assessment. Specifically, what is your current position? What position were you in 
during the implementation of using student learning outcomes assessment data to improve 
institutional quality? 

-Tell me the story of how your institution came to use SLO assessment data to improve 
institutional quality.  

-What was the driving force that got this initiative started (internal/external motivators)? 

-Who were the initial leaders or agents for change in this initiative? 

-What did the decision-making process look like during his initiative? Was the decision-
making process the same for all issues that arose (formal vs. informal)? 

-Often, a decision is made to implement a given initiative followed by the actual process 
of change. Were the individuals making decisions and the individuals involved in  the 
change process the same people? If not, could you tell me why there were different 
groups? 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-What was the process for developing this assessment initiative (using SLO data to 
improve institutional quality)? 

-Who was involved and how were they selected? 
-How were ideas put forth and solutions determined? 

-What/who were barriers to this initiative (i.e., systems, policies, people)? 

-Internal (i.e., institutional barriers, pushback from employees)? 
-External (i.e., stakeholders outside of the institution) 
-How were these barriers dealt with? 

-What/who were facilitators to this initiative (i.e., systems, policies, people)? 

-Internal (i.e., institutional systems that helped the process, positive culture, 
employees who were champions of change)? 
-External (i.e., stakeholders outside of the institutions)? 
-How were these facilitators leveraged or called into action? 

-How was the scope and timing of this initiative determined? 
-How was the timeline for this project developed? 
-Were there any key actions taken that occurred at important moments in time? 
-How was the breadth and depth of this initiative determined? 

-When and how was “success” of this assessment initiative determined? 
-Who played a major role in setting metrics for success? 
-Were there any disagreements or negotiating criteria for success? 

-What do you feel were the most important factors in your institution’s success with this 
particular assessment initiative (e.g.,  individuals, groups, institutional structures, events, 
etc.)? 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX B: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE 

Hello, 

My name is Mathew Devereaux, and I am a doctoral student in the Higher, Adult, and Lifelong 
Education program at Michigan State University. Under the supervision of my advisor, Dr. 
Matthew Wawrzynski, I am engaging in a research study to gain a better understanding of how 
community colleges use student learning outcome data to drive institutional improvement. 

In order to carry out this study, I am looking to interview members of faculty and administration 
who played a part in the creation of your assessment process, particularly how your institution 
began using student learning outcome data to inform institutional improvement. Each interview 
will include—but is not limited to—several open-ended questions about participant experiences 
around the development of your institutional assessment plan, again, with particular emphasis on 
the use of student learning outcome data in informing institutional improvement. 

These interviews will be recorded, however, I will be removing all personal information of 
interviewees to protect their privacy. Upon completion of the interviews, I will be analyzing 
responses to discover emerging themes. During this step, other individuals who are assisting me 
in the research process will see the written responses of interviewees, however, these responses 
will be completely anonymous. Please note that while several precautions will be taken to keep 
all identifying information private, certain details shared by participants could potentially make 
their identities known to others reading this dissertation. 

If you are a faculty member or an administrator who played a role in creating the policies and 
procedures governing the collection and use of student learning outcome data, and you would 
like to participate in an interview—approximately 1 hour—please email me by [date] at 
devere27@msu.edu. If you have any questions about this project, or are interested but need more 
information, please feel free to reach out as well. 

Sincerely, 

Mathew Devereaux 
devere27@msu.edu 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX C: CONSENT FORM 

Using Student Learning Outcome Data at Community Colleges: Understanding the How 
Consent Letter 

Dear Participant:  

This is an invitation to participate in an interview as part of a study seeking to understand how 
community colleges use student learning outcome data to improve institutional effectiveness. By 
gaining input from you and others at your institution about your personal experiences creating 
and implementing the current assessment policies and procedures, we hope to expand our 
understanding of how community colleges engage in the process of creating assessment plans. 
The current study entitled Using Student Learning Outcome Data at Community Colleges: 
Understanding the How is authored by Mathew Devereaux, under the supervision of Dr. 
Matthew Wawrzynski. The interview, should you choose to participate, will last approximately 
one hour. This time allotment is flexible, should the time required for your responses exceed one 
hour. 

Your involvement in this study is voluntary, therefore, you can choose not to participate or to 
answer some but not all the questions. All unique identifying information you provide will be 
removed from the data set when responses are analyzed. A few objective third-party individuals 
who are advising me on this project will see your responses, but these individuals are required to 
keep your information confidential. It is my hope that individuals who participate in this study 
will experience positive effects from the self-reflection asked of them, as well as pride in 
knowing that other institutions may benefit from their experience. 

The final version of this study will not contain identifying information of any participant. 
However, it is possible that certain responses by participants may unintentionally reveal their 
identity to others who read this. Let it be known, if you choose not to participate or not to 
respond to certain questions, there will be no penalty and it will not affect your status at your 
institution in any way. At any point during this study, you may decide to withdraw from 
participation with no penalty, and your privacy will continue to be protected. 

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact Dr. Matthew Wawrzynski, 
Associate Professor in Educational Administration, 419A Erickson Hall, Michigan State 
University, by phone at (517) 355-6617, or by email at mwawrzyn@msu.edu. If you have any 
additional questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are not satisfied 
with any aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously, if you prefer—Kristen Burt, 
Director, Human Research Protection Program, by phone: (517) 884-6020, email: 
burtkris@ora.msu.edu, or by post mail: 4000 Collins Rd. Suite 123, Lansing, MI 48910. 

Thank you and I look forward to your participation. 
I agree to participate in this study. In addition, by signing below I agree to allow my responses to 
be audio taped for research purposes of this study. 

Signature__________________________   Date________________________________ 

152 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Name (Printed)__________________________ 

153