Role of Student Outcomes in Higher Education Management Information Systems, Lecture notes of Decision Making

Download Role of Student Outcomes in Higher Education Management Information Systems and more Lecture notes Decision Making in PDF only on Docsity! DOCUMENT RESUME ED 176 658 HE 011 760 AUTHOR Elfner, Eliot S. TITLE Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Management Information Systems in Higher Education. PUB DATE 'Dec 76 NOTE 17p.; Paper presented at the National Ccnference of the College and University Systems Exchange (Orlando, Florida, December 1976) ' EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Accountability; College Administration; *Educational Assessment; Educational Research; *Efficiency; *Evaluation Methods; Higher Educaticn; *Management Information Systems; Program Administration; *Program Evaluation IDENTIFIERS • Outcomes ABSTRACT The dif ferent iaticn between efficiency and effectiveness in evaluating the performance of institutions of higher learning is examined and the role cf management information systems in the decision-making processes cf such institutions is explored. While efficiency is primarily concerned with cost minimization conaapts, effectiveness is concerned with the achievement of organizational goals. Management information systems--which gather data and organize them into meaningful, timely flows cf information for the decision-making process--must consider the characteristics of amount, form, and flow of information, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency criteria of successful decisions. If it is accepted that colleges do in fact have an impact on student outcomes and are concerned with how they contribute to those outcomes, then it is appropriate to consider how data about such outcomes can to included in the information systems used by the colleges in making decisions. The data bases used must include data relevant to the defined student outcome goals and objectives cf the instituticn. Several efforts made to develop data bases that do include information relevant to student ,outputs are described. A management information system that incorporates student outcomes has been developed which say make it possible for the academic decision-making process, as well as future evaluations and accountability studies, to address directly a more comprehensive group of fficiency and effectiveness criteria. (SC) EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION Eliot S. Elfner, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Business Administration St. Norbert College De Pere, WI 54115 Paper presented to the 1976 National Conference of the College and University Systems Exchange (Orlando, Fl), December, 1976. for the decision situation at hand. Even when one is found, the search process for other alternatives continues, with other possible choices being compared to the original choice on the basis of the limited information at hand to confirm its superi- ority. Should another alternative appear to be better than the first, it will be accepted and the original choice eliminated. All three of these theoretical descriptions of the decision process depend on the availibility of adequate information to the individual decision maker. Lipham states that "information serves as the basis for decision making ..." [15, p. 6] He also suggests that in con- sidering the topic of information, amount, form, and flow are among the important characteristics to consider. Some decisions require more information than others, and the amount of infor- mation available to the decision maker will have an influence on the decisions made. However, the amount of information that is available will be of little use unless it is presented to the decision maker in a form which is useful fin assisting in the evaluation of the various alternatives available. Finally, in- formation which is not made available to the decision maker until after the decision is made is,also of little use. The timing of the flow of information is also important to the de- cision making process. Information systems provide 'data for making decisions about how to allocate resources among various competing programs. In order to evaluate these decisions, the information must be pro- vided in terms of the criteria of successful decision making. Vroom and Yetton [25] suggest three separate criteria for evaluating the degree of success in decisions. First, the de- cision must demonstrate technical quality. Next, it must be one which is acceptable to those who are to be involved in im- plementing it.. Finally, they suggest that the amount of time taken to reach the decision is an important criterion far evaluating a decision. Reitz [22, p. 158-159] labels his criteria for successful decisions as efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency criteria include the cost óf making the decision and the time which elapses between the recognition of the problem and the making 'of the decision. on how to cope with it. Effectiveness criteria include the extent to which the problem is correctly evaluated, costs assessed, and benefits of alternatives determined, as well as the likelihood of carrying out the decision that is made, and finally the support acquired from the people required to implement the chosen alternative. It seems logical to conclude that Management Information Systems, the purpose of which is to gather data and organize them into meaningful, timely flows of information for the de- cision making process, must consider the characteristics of amount, form, and flow of information, as well as the effective- ness and efficiency eriteriá of successful decisions. In the study of higher education, if it is accepted that colleges' do in fact have an impact on student outcomes, and that some colleges" are concerned with how they contribute to those students outcomes, then it is appropriate to consider how data about such outcomes might be inclined in the information systems which colleges and universities use in, making their decisions. Currently, the state of the art for considering student outcome information in making decisions is ninimal. "Although most college catalogues claim that student development is a fundamental institutional purpose, the decision-making process in higher education often ignores the student implications of alternative courses of action. This tendency is exemplified by the computer- baséd management information systems now used by many colleges and universities. Except for simplistic informa- tion on enrollments, majors, and credits, these systems provide almost no information on students. Administrators who rely on such systems are thus encouraged to view planning and decision-making basically as a problem in manipulation of resources. The 'benefit' side of the decision-equation, as reflected in the likely consequences for student development, is given scant attention at best and, in most cases, is léft out of the decision pro- cess altoget.her." [4, p. 1] Any organization has the responsibility to use its re- sources efficiently and effectively,-especially those which use public tax dollars for a large proportion of its expenditures. Both' public and private institutions of higher education fall. into this category. It is often understood that efficiency and effectiveness are somewhat: similar, and little effort is normally made to differentiate one from the other. A major point of this paper, however, is 'that there is a significant .• difference in kind between these two concepts, and that an evalu- ation based only on efficiency criteria, without also including effectiveness criteria is improper for rational administration. Efficiency is generally defined as the ratio of constant quality outputs (in the numerator) to inputs (in the denomina- tor). The larger the ratio, the more efficient is an organiza-. tion. This ratio may be increased by either increasing the output (numerator) while holding quality of output constant, without increasing the input (denominator), or conversély, by Efficiency becomes an entirely separate matter. An effective institution can be either efficient or inefficient. These dimensions become separate and distinct indicators of account- ability' for' the administrators in institutions of higher educa- tion. Since most college catalogues claim that the achievement of some students' outcomes are among their fundamental objec- tives [4, p. 2], it becomes imperative that administrators have information about the effect of their actions on students. Yet current information systems seem to overlook this need. The amount of information on student outcomes is minimal. Bayer states, "Sound administrative decision-making in higher educa- tion requires thorough sociological knowledge of a college's environmental characteristics ... and their impact on students' growth and development. ... But rarely have educational deci- sions been grounded in empirical data and systematic analysis: rather they are usually based on economic constraints, political pressure, tradition, folklore, and anecdotal information." (6, pp.•549-550] Corson notes that "The accounting systems. utilized by most colleges and universities do not provide the information required for such decisions." [7, p. 159] The in- formation systems available to decision-makers in higher educa- tion seem not to have allowed for the "amount, form, and flow" of student outcome information. While discussing a core data base in a paper on information systems in higher education, Craven lists six basic data areas including curricúlum, students, facilities, personnel, finances, and environment. [8, p. 132] It is difficult to infer from this list of data areas that this framework is concerned with student outcome data. Other references in this article allow for the differences between efficiency and effectiveness, but the collection and processing of student outcome data is over- looked. [ 8, pp..135-136 ] Those institutions that are concerned with student out- comes as high priority objectives must formally develop and state them. Logically then, information systems which measure and process data for decision-makers must be designed with those institutional goals and objectives in mind. The data bases must include data relevant to the defined student outcome goals and objectives of the institution. Several efforts have been made to develop data bases which do include information relevant to student outputs. One of them is that developed by Perry. [20) [21) In a four phase research project begun in 1953, he gathered and analyzed enough data to be able to generalize a three-stage learning process for stu- dents: moving from dualism to relativism; exploring relativism; and developing commitments and identity to specific norms and values. As a theoretical framework, it "... describes students' developmental processes in a unique way: i.e., through forms of thought and styles of establishing values and personal identity. It describes how students progress in levels of thinking com- plexity, how that leads to a merging of knowledge and values, and how a sense of identity is established." [12, p. 493] "... It represents a compelling framework for an. 'ideal' educational process, a normative basis for judging educational outcomes." [12, p.'494] This approach appears to be the-first in the field,. even though the articles reporting it were only published in the last nine years. It is psychological in orientation, im posing normative results based on a specific value structure. Another project that has developed measures of student outcomes is one headed by C. Robert Pace. [19] This lóose leaf collection of numerous small surveys provides many poten- tial measures of a variety of student outcomes. The major benefit of this kit is that about half of the measures pro- vided have been normed against approximately 7,500 upper- classmen at 80 colleges and universities. These colleges and universities have been classified into eight different groups, ranging from general comprehensive universities, through general liberal arts colleges, to special purpose institutions such as teacher training colleges. Thus, an administrator has an opportunity to make comparative analyses of the results of surveying the students of the local institution with the normed results of other like institutions. The National Center for Higher Education,Management Systems (NCHEMS) at the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WIC1T) has published three documents which address, the issue of measuring personal development of students. [16] [17] [18]. Their work began after a conference conducted by WICHE in cooper- ation with the American Council on Education and the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education at Berkeley. [13] Their research resulted in eleven major outcome areas, to be measured by specific scales and items. These researchers have provided a large and comprehensive list of outcome items and many potential indicators of personal development of students. Literature Cited [1] Adtin, Alexander W. The College Environment. (Washington, D. C: The American Council On Education, 1968). [2] Astin, Alexander W. "Measuring Student Outputs in Higher Education." in Outputs of Education: Their Identification, Measurement, and Evaluation, edited by Ben Lawrence, George Weathersby, and Virginia W. Patterson. (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Compact for Higher Education. 1970) . [3] Astin, Alexander W. Improving Colleges for Students. (New York: Praeger Press. 1976a). [4] As-tin, Alexander W. "Student-Oriented Management Information Systems." Paper presented at the Academic Planning for the Eighties and Nineties Conference. (Los Angelos: 1976b). [5] Bogard, Lawrence. "Management in Institutions of Higher Education." in Papers On Efficiency in the Management of Higher Education. edited by Mood, Alexander M., et Al. (Berkeley, California: Carnegie Commission On Higher Education. 1972). [61 Bayer, Alan E. "Faculty Composition, Institutional Structure, and Students', College Environment." Journal -of Higher Education. XLVI (September-October, 1975), 549-65. [7] Corson, John J. The Governance of Colleges and Universities. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975). [8] Craven, Eugene C. "Information Decision Systems in Higher Education: A Conceptual Framework." The Journal of Higher Education. XLVI, (March/April, 1975), 125-139. [9] Dressel, Paul L., Handbook of Academic Evaluation, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1976). [10] Drucker, Peter F. "What Principles of Management can the President of a Small College Use to Improve the Efficiency of his Institution." in Selected Issues in College Administra- tion. Edited by Earl J. McGrath. (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. 1967). [11] Filley, Alan C. and House, Robert J. Managerial Process and Organizational Behavior. 2nd ed. (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, l'oresman and Company., 1976). [12] Heffernan, James M. "An Analytical Framework for Planning and Research in Higher Education." Journal of Higher Edu- cation, XLVI (November/December, 1975), 493-503. [13] Lawrence, Ben, Weathersby, George, 'and Patterson, Virginia W., ed's., Outputs of Higher Education: Their Identifica- tion, Measurement, and Evaluation. (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Compact for Higher Education., 1970). (14] Leonard, W. F. "Productivity in Higher Education: A Business- man's Approach." Higher Education, Human Resources, and the National Economy: Addresses and Discussion Papers from the Sixtieth Annual Meeting of the Association of American Colleges. (Washington, D. C: April, 1974). [15] Lipham, James M. "Improving the Decision-Making Skills of the Principal." In Performance Objectives for School Princi- als. by Jack. A. Culbertson, Curtis Henson, and Ruel Morrison. (Berkeley, California: McCutchan. 1974). (16] Micek, Sidney S., & Arney, William Ray. The Higher Education Outcome Measures Identification Study: A Descriptive Summary. (Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems at Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. 1974). [17] Micek, Signey S., Service, Allan L., & Lee, S. Yong. Outcome Measures and Procedures Manual: Field Review Edition., Technical Report No. 70. (Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems at Western Interstate Compact for Higher Education. 1975). [18] Micek,.S.tgney'S., and Wallhaus, Robert A. An Introduction to the Identification and Uses of Higher Education Outcome Infor- mation, Technical Report :Jo. 4-0. (Boulder,. Colorado: Western Interstate Compact for Higher Education. 1973). [19] Pace, C. Robert, Higher Education Measurement and Evaluation Kit, (Los Angelos: Higher Education Evaluation Program of the Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA Graduàte School of Education, 1972). [20] Perry, William G., Jr. Patterns of Development in Thought and Values of Students in a Liberal Arts College: A Valida€ion of a Scheme. (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health Education,. and Welfare, Office of Education, Project 5-0825. 1968) [21] Perry, William G., Jr. Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, Co. 1970). [22] Reitz, H. Joseph, Behavior in Organizations, (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1977). [23] Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior. 2nd ed., (MacMillan and Co., 1957). [24) Soelberg, P. "Unprogrammed DeCision." Papers and Proceed- ings: 26th Annual Meeting, Academy of Management, (1966), 3-16. [25] Vroom, Victor H., and Yetton, Philip W., Leadership and Decision Making, (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973).