We are often asked for examples of how campuses coordinate assessment activity within Campus Labs (e.g., logins, oversight of requested projects). The type of coordination that will work best for your campus is dependent upon your priorities and your campus culture. Below are the most common types of coordination we have seen.

Example 1: All users operate individually

Each staff member in the division has their own login and submits their own projects without touching base with anyone else on campus.

  • No “middle man” → direct communication between campus coordinator and Campus Labs staff
  • Can be a quicker process due to fewer people involved
  • May mean that no one at the institution is keeping track of all the assessment projects taking place, which may mean a likelihood of:
    • Over-surveying
    • Missing opportunities to collaborate
    • Lack of thorough planning

 

Example 2: All activity is managed by the campus coordinator

There is one person/committee in the division who is the assessment project contact person (campus coordinator).

  • Works directly with the individuals in their division and then directly with Campus Labs
    • Requests all projects
    • All previews and any necessary changes go through this individual
    • Asks questions for the individuals at their campus
  • Easy to keep track of all assessment projects taking place - Information sheet submitted by individual user to campus coordinator/committee with pertinent details
  • Coordinator/committee has client administrator privileges and can therefore view all projects for all departments in our system
  • Due to “middle man” process may take longer, but also requires the individual staff to plan  for their assessments in order to go through the process

 

Example 3: Combination of 1 and 2

There is one divisional person/committee who coordinates the process at the beginning, however, once an individual user has done a project, they are “on their own” and can submit projects as they please.

  • Divisional coordinator/committee can provide an “orientation” to Campus Labs and let individual users know of any campus-specific processes or procedures they need to be aware of
  • Coordinator/committee has client administrator privileges and can therefore view all projects for all departments in our system
  • Less time-consuming for the coordinating individual/committee than in Example 2, but still serves as a contact person on the campus
  • Each individual has direct communication with Campus Labs once they have received their login and “orientation” information from the coordinator/committee.

 

Example 4: Departmental Representation

There is one individual in each department that serves as the assessment coordinator for the dept.

  • All Campus Labs access for departmental staff is requested by this individual directly to Campus Labs
  • All assessment projects are “approved” by this individual
  • Either this person or each individual user can request the project with Campus Labs once it has been approved by the departmental coordinator
  • The departmental assessment coordinator is responsible for informing the campus coordinator/committee of assessment activity in their department on a regular basis; this allows the campus coordinator/committee to create a list or calendar of all assessment activity across the division.
  • Coordinator/committee has client administrator privileges and can therefore view all projects for all departments in our system
  • Allows for oversight of activity, but because it is department based, this process is not as time consuming for the divisional coordinator/committee.

Below are some campus-specific example of assessment coordination:

1) Boston College: They have staff use the Campus Labs request process as the BC request process, uploading a proposal form (see attachment below) and waiting for approval to move forward. Campus Labs copies the campus contact when we receive the request and wait for their okay to move forward.  

2) Case Western: They have staff fill out the proposal form and get it approved before submitting a Campus Labs request. The campus approver sends us approved proposals and we know to work on only those projects.

3) University of Vermont: Members of the Assessment Committee "sponsor" projects by requesting them on behalf of the primary investigator. They note who the real investigator is in the request, and we include both of them in all communications.

4) CSU Fullerton: The campus contact is copied on all confirmation emails so she knows what projects have been requested. She follows up with the requestor if something looks off.

5) Lehigh: No formal proposal form. The campus contacts are cc'd on the "preview" email (which notifies the requestor that their project is ready) and need to approve it before launch.

Have more questions? Submit a request