Exploring the decision-making processes inherent to student affairs learning outcomes assessment through the lens of bounded rationality

Abstract

A major discrepancy exists between the research on and practice of student affairs learning outcomes assessment. Assessment scholars and professional organizations encourage the use of multiple measures to assess the complex constructs that are hallmarks of student affairs work, such as leadership, ethical-decision making and citizenship, yet student affairs practitioners and researchers are using locally developed self-report surveys more than any other data collection method. Adding to this problem of practice, a growing body of research suggests that students are largely unable to accurately report their learning. If scholars and professional organizations recommend "multiple-measures" and mixed-method approaches to measuring student learning yet student affairs practitioners and researchers rely on self-reports surveys, which may not be valid, then more must be known about why student affairs professionals use self-report surveys as their primary, and often only, source of data on student learning. The purpose of this qualitative, transcendental phenomenological study was to explore this problem of practice by investigating how nine student affairs assessment professionals describe the decision-making processes inherent to measuring the learning that occurs as a result of student affairs programs and services as well as the contexts, limitations, and environments that influence decisions. Through the lens of bounded rationality, the findings of this study reveal that student affairs assessment professionals strive to make the best decisions possible using a collaborative approach and strategic process to align all elements of the assessment cycle while remaining cognizant of the influences of internal factors, including resources, internal stakeholders and culture as well as external factors, such as existing knowledge and external stakeholders.