Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2.docx

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3,
2002
Assessing the Transfer Function:
benchmarking best practices from state
higher education agencies
JOHN F. WELSH, Of� ce of the University Provost, University
of Louisville,
Kentucky, USA
ABSTRACT State higher education agencies in the US are in a
propitious position to
improve the educational environment for students who transfer
from one institution to
another within a state. This paper reports on the results of a
nationwide survey on the
assessment of the transfer function by state higher education
agencies. Using a
benchmarking methodology, the paper suggests some ‘best
practices’ of state higher
education agencies in the organisation and use of transfer
student information systems.
The paper has relevance for institutional personnel and public
policy makers since the
number of transfer-oriented institutions and the number of
transfer students are
increasing across the globe.
Background
State higher education boards and agencies in the US play an

increasingly important role
in higher education, both through the � nancing of public
higher education and as the
primary progenitors of public policy toward higher education.
Although 47 of the 50
states in the US already had a state higher education agency by
1970, the impact of state
governments on higher education in the US escalated in
importance since the mid-1980s
when national and state policy makers began to focus more
attention on the quality,
accessibility, and accountability of higher education (Ewell,
1995; McGuinness, 1997;
Newman, 1987). Today, every state, and Puerto Rico, has a state
higher education board
comprised of lay representatives and an agency comprised of
professional staff.
As the primary conduit between state governments and public
institutions, state higher
education agencies acquired authority and responsibility to
collect and interpret infor-
mation on student and institutional performance to inform and
guide state policy
processes. State higher education agencies are uniquely situated
to understand and to
improve the environment for students for select higher
education dynamics. Inter-institu-
ISSN 0260-2938 print; ISSN 1469-297 X online/02/030257-1 2
Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0260293022013861 5
258 J. F. Welsh

tional transfer and articulation is one such dynamic because
state governments are able
to (1) establish multi-institutional databases and (2) develop
and monitor policy pertain-
ing to inter-institutional phenomena (Rifkin, 2000). Recent
research suggests that the
improvement of the transfer environment is an important policy
goal for state higher
education agencies, surpassing such recurrent concerns as
faculty salaries, the quality of
undergraduat e education and student � nancial aid as a state
policy issue (Russell, 2000,
p. 4).
McMurtrie (2001) reports that the improvement of the transfer
environment is an
international imperative since community, technical and other
transfer-oriented colleges
are increasing in numbers and importance around the globe. The
need for state, regional
or provincial public higher education agencies to assess the
mobility and academic
performance of transfer students increases commensurably.
The increased interest of state higher education agencies in
transfer students is
contradicted somewhat by the legacy of research on state
support for the transfer
function of post-secondary institutions. Policy makers
frequently emphasise the import-
ance of state support for fully articulated and coordinated
opportunities for students, but
research since the 1960s demonstrates little support for the
transfer function of institu-
tions (Cohen & Brawer, 1989; Kintzer, 1989; Knoell &

Medsker, 1965). Other research
demonstrates that state higher education agencies tend not to
have information systems
or databases that can be used to support students who transfer
from one institution to
another, despite their opportunity to do so (Ahumada, 1993;
Clagett & Huntington, 1991;
Ewell & Jones, 1987, 1991).
Ahumada argues that the lack of state commitment to improving
the transfer
environment threatens important functions of community and
technical colleges, partic-
ularly, because, “few databases at the state and systemwide
levels have been established
to facilitate student tracking from program to program, or from
institution to institution,
on through the attainment of the baccalaureate degree” (1993, p.
143). Rifkin acknowl-
edges the important role of state coordination and state-level
transfer and articulation
initiatives, but also indicates that the state role must be
bolstered by “an integrated
technical infrastructure that can support student information
systems, articulation and
transfer data from both two- and four-year institutions in the
state” (2000, p. 7).
While Cohen and Brawer (1987) and Lenth and Russell (1991)
agree with Ahumada
and Rifkin, there is some evidence that the state policy and
planning environment for
student transfer has changed as a result of four dynamics: (1)
increased data management
capacity in state higher education agencies, particularly in the
ability of both institutions

and the state to track the academic progress of students in
multi-institutional contexts
(Ewell, 1995); (2) increased attention to student outcomes
driven by accrediting
agencies, state policy makers, and the reporting requirements of
the Student Right to
Know and Campus Security Act of 1990 (Lenth & Russell,
1991; Russell, 1999); (3)
increased political pressure at the state level to improve inter-
institutional transfer and
articulation (Newman, 1987; Rodriguez, 1994; Russell &
Chisholm, 1995; Walleri,
1990); and (4) the creation of regional consortia within and
among states to share student
mobility and performance information (Adams, 1999; Trainer,
1996).
In 1999, the State Higher Education Executive Of� cers
(SHEEO), which is the
national organisation for state higher education executives,
published a national survey
of its member agencies that demonstrated that no fewer than 42
states maintain ongoing
student information systems that include data elements on
transfer students (Russell,
1999). SHEEO also observed that at least 39 states collect unit
records, or data on
individual students, which permit tracking student mobility and
performance from one
Assessing the Transfer Function 259
institution to another, at least among public institutions within
the state. The SHEEO

study discovered that almost all state higher education agencies
routinely collect data on
post-secondary student transfers, suggesting potential for these
agencies to promote
changes or improvements in the transfer environments within
public higher education
systems. However, analysts such as Ahumada (1993), Rifkin
(2000), Bragg (1989), and
Cohen and Brawer (1989) demonstrate that state higher
education agencies do very little
with data to improve educational outcomes for students who
transfer from two-year to
four-year institutions.
Given improvements in data collection and management in state
higher education
of� ces, an important research and policy question is to what
extent is there a disconnect
between the capacity of state higher education agencies to
collect, manage and dissemi-
nate information on transfer students and their practice in using
this information to
improve transfer environments within states? A more
operational way of stating the issue
is to ask what are the characteristics and uses of transfer student
information systems in
state higher education agencies that optimise transfer
effectiveness for students who
transfer, particularly within public higher education?
In an effort to understand the current role of student
information systems and how
state agencies use the information to assess the environment for
transfer students, this
study reports on a nationwide survey of transfer student
information systems in state

higher education agencies in the US. Drawing data gleaned from
interviews with chief
academic of� cers, policy analysts and/or research of� cers in
the higher education of� ces
of all 50 states and Puerto Rico, the research benchmarks some
of the best practices
among states in the characteristics and uses of student
information systems in state
higher education agencies to improve the transfer of students
from two-year to four-year
institutions.
Methodology
In the winter and spring of 2000, pro� les of the transfer
student information systems in
each state’s higher education agency were developed based on
interviews with the
agency’s chief academic of� cer, chief research of� cer and/or
principal policy analyst
assigned to transfer student issues for each of the 50 states and
Puerto Rico. Respondents
were initially identi� ed through an appendix to the 1999
SHEEO study (Russell, 1999).
The agencies were then contacted to discuss the project and
arrange for a telephone
interview with staff members responsible for the management
and use of the agency’s
student information system or databases on transfer students.
On occasion, additional
staff from the agency were included in the interviews to add
depth to aspects of the
inquiry.
The interviews with staff in the state higher education agencies
were preceded by a

pilot study of a schedule of interview questions that tapped into
� ve analytic dimensions
that were developed from existing research literature on student
information systems in
state higher education agencies. Particularly helpful in the
development of the interview
schedule were the writings of Ewell (1995), Lenth and Russell
(1991), Russell (1999),
Russell and Chisholm (1995), Ahumada (1993) and Rifkin
(2000). The � ve dimensions
are discussed below:
(1) Purpose of the information system. Questions on this
dimension were crafted to
ascertain the primary purposes or policy goals served by the
collection and use of
information on transfer students.
260 J. F. Welsh
(2) Structure of the information system. The major objective of
the questions on this
dimension was to understand how the information system is
con� gured. Does it
include unit records on individual students or is the data
aggregated by institution?
Can it track student movement and progress from one institution
to another?
(3) Scope and content of the information system. The third
dimension concerns the range
of institutions included in the information system and the types
of data elements that
are captured. Particularly important is whether data elements on

student academic
performance or progress toward a baccalaureate degree are
included in the system.
(4) Uses of the information system. This dimension addresses
how data elements from
the system are reported and used by the state higher education
agency and public
institutions within the state. The primary interest in including
this dimension is to
ascertain whether state policy makers or institutions use the
data to inform their
policy initiatives or to improve transfer processes.
(5) Impact of the information system. Finally, it is important to
determine whether
transfer student information systems have any type of impact on
students or the
transfer environment in the state.
Once information on the � ve dimensions was collected from
each state higher education
agency, state staff reviewed the accuracy of the pro� le of
responses. The responses to
each question included on the interview schedule were coded by
response type. Response
codes were then organised into a matrix that permitted a
summary of responses and a
state-by-state comparison on each dimension.
The � ve dimensions culled from existing research literature
and the responses to the
interview schedule provide an opportunity to suggest some ‘best
practices’ for state-level
transfer student information systems and to benchmark the
number of states adhering to

best practices on each dimension. Benchmarking is an
increasing popular research and
policy tool in the higher education community that enables
organisations, institutions and
units to improve their performance through the measurement of
activities and comparing
them to a set of articulated standards or practices. The
philosophy underlying bench-
marking is that learning from ‘best practice cases’ or ‘best
practice principles’ is an
effective way to improve the speci� c practices of any one
organisation (Alstete, 1995;
Camp, 1989; McNair & Leibfried, 1992).
State higher education agencies and the institutions they serve
can use identi� ed best
practices to benchmark the use of the data in their transfer
student information system
as a vehicle to improve their service to policy makers and
transfer students. A national
perspective on transfer student information systems can provide
state higher education
agencies with a sense of how they ‘measure up’ to articulated
standards in the structure
and use of transfer student information systems.
Findings and Analysis
Initial exploration of the data con� rmed the observation by
SHEEO that the majority of
state higher education agencies collect and are prepared to use
information to pursue
improvements in the transfer environment (Russell, 1999). No
fewer than 43 (86%)
states and Puerto Rico report at least one database or
information system on transfer

students, suggesting that the context for data gathering and
management has changed
since the late 1980s. However, the data also reveal that only
47% of state higher
education agencies are able to report any evidence of use or
impact of the information
system on the transfer environment.
These observations suggest that most state higher education
agencies are not using the
information they collect to assess the academic performance of
transfer students. The
practices of some states in the collection, management and use
of information on transfer
students provide some indication of how state higher education
agencies can assess the
transfer function and help improve the transfer environment for
students. The following
identi� es some of the ‘best practices’ of state higher education
agencies based on the
data collected about transfer student information systems.
Best Practice One: the purpose of the information system
The interviews with state higher education of� cers suggest that
best practice states
clearly articulate and widely communicate policy objectives for
improving the environ-
ment for transfer students, including the collection and use of
data to monitor the ability
of transfer students to meet their educational goals.

The primary set of questions posed to state academic and
research of� cers about their
transfer student information systems pertained to the policy
objectives that the data are
intended to ful� ll. The interview schedule was structured to
identify the state higher
education agency’s most important purpose in collecting
information on transfer stu-
dents. Table 1 summarises the array and frequency of responses
to queries about the
primary purpose or objective served by the transfer student
information system.
The data reveal that, while it is the most frequently cited policy
objective, only 27%
of all state higher education agencies in the US identify
improvement of the transfer
environment as a primary policy objective for collecting
information on transfer students.
Respondents from states that cited this objective reported that
transfer effectiveness is a
signi� cant policy issue that requires a database to inform staff
and policy makers, assess
transfer and articulation agreements or to otherwise improve
education opportunities and
outcomes for transfer students. One state chief academic of�
cer characterised this type
of response very succinctly,
Our legislature and state board of higher education have a
commitment to
making transfer between institutions as easy as possible.
Another state chief academic of� cer commented:
We have a very clear statewide policy on admissions for

freshmen and for
transfer students, which assures them that they can get in. We
monitor that and,
in fact, just completed a transcript audit of transfer students last
year.
Another indicated: “our main interest is to track the success of
community college
students at our four-year institutions”.
Following the interest in improving the effectiveness of the
transfer process, 11 (22%)
of the states report that the primary purpose of the system is to
support institutional and
state planning, which was focused on student mobility and
enrollment management
issues, and 7 (14%) report that their main interest in collecting
the data is to ful� ll their
interest in outcomes assessment. Of� cials from these states
indicated that the interest in
using data on transfer students to support institutional and state
planning or outcomes
assessment does not preclude an interest in enhancing transfer
effectiveness. Similarly,
state interests in outcomes assessments or promoting
accountability do not preclude
states from also trying to use the data to enhance the transfer
environment, since transfer
issues can be subsumed within these other categories.
However, a question arises about which objectives best serve
the interest in assessing
and improving educational outcomes for transfer students. The
data demonstrate that all

262 J. F. Welsh
T
A
B
L
E
1
.
S
ta
te
p
o
li
cy
o
b
je
ct
iv
es
ad
dr
es
se

d
b
y
tr
an
sf
er
st
ud
en
t
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
sy
st
em
s
N
um
b

er
of
S
H
E
E
O
of
�
ce
s
P
er
ce
n
ta
ge
of
S
H
E
E
O
P

er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
al
l
id
en
ti
fy
in
g
o
f�
ce
s
w
it
h
T
S
IS
S

H
E
E
O
o
f�
ce
s
ob
je
ct
iv
e
id
en
ti
fy
in
g
o
bj
ec
ti
v
e

id
en
ti
fy
in
g
o
bj
ec
ti
v
e
P
ri
m
ar
y
po
li
cy
ob
je
ct
iv

es
id
en
ti
�
ed
by
re
sp
on
d
en
ts
:
(N
5
4
4
)
(N
5
4
4)
(N

5
5
1)
1
.
E
nh
an
ce
tr
an
sf
er
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
14
3
2
%

2
7
%
2
.
S
up
p
or
t
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
al
an
d
st
at
e
pl
an
n
in

g
11
2
5
%
2
2
%
3
.
In
te
re
st
in
o
ut
co
m
es
as
se
ss
m
en

t
7
1
6
%
1
4
%
4
.
P
ro
m
o
te
ac
co
u
nt
ab
il
it
y
5
1

1
%
1
0
%
5
.
P
ro
v
id
e
ge
n
er
ic
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
on
st
ud

en
ts
4
9
%
8
%
6
.
R
ep
o
rt
IP
E
D
S
da
ta
3
7
%
6
%

T
ot
al
44
10
0
%
8
7
%
N
o
te
s:
T
ab
le
in
cl
u
de
s
P
u
er

to
R
ic
o
.
S
H
E
E
O
5
S
ta
te
H
ig
he
r
E
d
uc
at
io
n
E

x
ec
u
ti
v
e
O
f�
ce
rs
;
T
S
IS
5
T
ra
n
sf
er
S
tu
d
en
t

In
fo
rm
at
io
n
S
ys
te
m
;
IP
E
D
S
5
In
te
g
ra
te
d
P
o
st

-s
ec
o
nd
ar
y
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
D
at
a
S
y
st
em
.
of the states that identi� ed improvement of the transfer
environment as the primary

policy goal could provide evidence that they were using the data
to improve the transfer
environment and student outcomes. This was not the case for
states that cited other
policy objectives. An important concern is that the relative
importance of efforts to
improve the transfer environment are diminished as policy
objectives diverge or become
diffuse, broad and vague.
Best Practice Two: the structure of the information system
A second best practice in statewide transfer student information
systems is the ability to
track student transfers among all post-secondary institutions
within the state on a
continuous basis. The top section of Table 2 provides the data
gathered on the structure
of transfer student information systems, including the (1)
frequency of data collection;
(2) the type of data collected, whether it is unit record data on
students or data
aggregated by institutions prior to submission to state higher
education of� ces; and (3)
whether the system has the capacity to track student mobility.
Best practice states, those
most likely to collect and use data to improve educational
outcomes for transfer students
are those that collect data on a continuous basis, collect unit
records on students and
have the capacity to track students from institution to
institution. The data indicate that
most of the states that have transfer student information systems
organise their system
along these lines.

Chief academic of� cers from three states clearly articulate the
importance of the
continuous collection of unit records on students:
Because we have a unit record system, we can track multiple
transfer points
and look at student performance once they transfer.
The database for the reports that come out of the system is a
unit record
database. For every student in the post-secondary system, there
is a record that
is then combined or merged with the university record to verify
that they have
transferred and to expand the record to pick up information on
retention and
graduation and academic performance.
Our system actually has both aggregated data and student unit
records. We
collect student data on various characteristics and that sort of
thing. We also
report to our board on the effectiveness of transfers and that’s
at the aggregate
level.
Not every state that has an information system with these
features actually uses the data
to assess student outcomes and improve the transfer
environment, the continuous
collection of unit record data on students enables state higher
education agencies to
monitor student mobility and performance, analyse raw data
according to the state’s
policy interests, and aggregate institutional data for reporting
and accountability.

Best Practice Three: assessing the educational progress of
students
A third suggested best practice is the inclusion of data elements
in transfer student
information systems, which enables policy makers and
institutional staff to assess the
educational performance and progress of students. Table 2
indicates that a majority of
states (89%) include transfer students in the computation of
institutional retention and
graduation rates, which gives them some information on how
transfer students perform
264 J. F. Welsh
T
A
B
L
E
2
.
F
ea
tu
re
s

o
f
st
at
e-
le
v
el
tr
an
sf
er
st
ud
en
t
in
fo
rm
at
io
n
sy
st

em
s
P
er
ce
nt
ag
e
of
N
u
m
b
er
o
f
S
H
E
E
O
o
f�
ce
s

P
er
ce
n
ta
g
e
o
f
al
l
S
H
E
E
O
o
f�
ce
s
w
it
h
T

S
IS
S
H
E
E
O
of
�
ce
s
re
po
rt
in
g
re
p
or
ti
ng
fe
at
ur
e

re
po
rt
in
g
fe
at
u
re
F
ea
tu
re
s
id
en
ti
�
ed
by
S
H
E
E

O
re
sp
o
nd
en
ts
:
fe
at
ur
e
(N
5
44
)
(N
5
51
)
S
tr
u
ct

u
re
o
f
th
e
S
y
st
em
:
1
.
C
on
ti
nu
o
us
d
at
a
co
ll
ec

ti
o
n
4
1
9
3
%
8
0%
2
.
C
ol
le
ct
io
n
o
f
st
u
de
n
t
u

n
it
re
co
rd
s
3
4
7
7
%
6
7%
3
.
C
ap
ac
it
y
to
tr
ac
k
st

u
de
nt
m
ob
il
it
y
3
2
7
3
%
6
3%
C
o
n
te
n
t
of
th
e
S
y
st

em
:
1
.
In
cl
u
de
s
tr
an
sf
er
st
u
de
nt
s
in
re
te
n
ti
o
n

an
d
g
ra
d
u
at
io
n
ra
te
s
3
9
8
9
%
7
6%
2
.
In
cl
u
de
s

ad
d
it
io
na
l
ac
ad
em
ic
ou
tc
om
es
d
at
a
3
1
7
0
%
6
1%
In

te
ra
ct
iv
it
y
o
f
th
e
S
y
st
em
:
1
.
E
le
ct
ro
n
ic
ac
ce

ss
to
da
ta
1
3
3
0
%
2
5%
2
.
A
d
h
o
c
o
r
pe
ri
o
d
ic
re

p
o
rt
s
9
2
0
%
1
8%
Im
p
ac
t
on
th
e
P
ol
ic
y
E
nv
ir
o
n

m
en
t:
1
.
E
v
id
en
ce
o
f
im
p
ac
t
on
tr
an
sf
er
an
d
ar
ti

cu
la
ti
on
2
4
5
5
%
4
7%
2
.
S
u
pp
or
t
fo
r
st
at
e
p
o
li

cy
in
it
ia
ti
ve
s
1
1
2
5
%
2
2%
N
o
te
s:
T
ab
le
in
cl
ud
es

P
u
er
to
R
ic
o
.
S
H
E
E
O
5
S
ta
te
H
ig
h
er
E
du
ca
ti

o
n
E
x
ec
u
ti
ve
O
f�
ce
rs
;
T
S
IS
5
T
ra
n
sf
er
S
tu
de

n
t
In
fo
rm
at
io
n
S
ys
te
m
;
IP
E
D
S
5
In
te
g
ra
te
d

P
o
st
-s
ec
o
nd
ar
y
E
d
u
ca
ti
on
D
at
a
S
y
st
em
.

relative to ‘native’ students. A smaller majority (70%) collect
additional information on
the academic outcomes of transfer students.
One research of� cer indicated that the system in his state:
… has the capacity to tell us about the students who have
completed an
associates degree and their grade point average. It tells us how
well community
college transfer students do compared to ‘native’ students at the
universities.
Another describes the type of student performance data captured
at the state level: “We
[the state agency] have student enrollment and student
outcomes, degrees awarded,
courses taken, grades earned”.
Another research of� cer indicated the level of frustration in
her state because the
information system does not include data about student
performance:
We interviewed students and professors from all of the systems
and they told
us that they feel that transfer is used [only] as an enrollment
management tool
by the four-year systems. They’re real frustrated and concerned
that as transfer
occurs, there are a lot of speci� c behaviors that would increase
transfer, but
there is no support because we don’t have the information.
If state governments are to have any meaningful role in the

assessment of student
outcomes, and the improvement of outcomes for students, they
must collect information
on the academic performance of transfer students.
Best Practice Four: the interactivity of the information system
While state governments can have a signi� cant impact on the
opportunities and
outcomes transfer students experience, signi� cant
improvements can also occur at the
campus level. In order to optimise improvements in the
environment for transfer
students, institutions must have convenient access to multi-
institutional databases or to
systems that include information on the students they send and
receive. A fourth
suggested best practice is that state-level transfer student
information systems will have
the technological capacity that enables institutions to interact
electronically with the
system.
Table 2 summarises the data on how institutions within states
interact with state-level
databases and information systems pertaining to transfer
students. Very few states
provide either electronic or periodic written reports to
institutions on transfer students.
However, there is some reason for optimism as some states are
capitalising on
developments in technology and data warehousing to improve
institutional accessibility
to information on transfer students. One research of� cer
commented:

Within the next year, we plan to get to a point where
institutions can
(electronically) tap into the data warehouse directly through
security measures
that are designed to protect the privacy of individual student
records.
Another commented on his state’s system:
It’s an entirely web-based system. You can actually get a pretty
good feel for
it by going to the Board’s home page. You can actually see the
information
system pieces. It’s completely documented on the web, all of
our � le layouts,
our data and load speci� cations, the data and load rules, all
data that come into
the system by the web, we’ve got a very elaborate set of query
tools out there
that campuses use to access their data.
266 J. F. Welsh
The data on the interactivity of state-level transfer student
information systems are
somewhat discouraging from the standpoint that convenient
accessibility to the infor-
mation may underpin improvements that institutions are able to
promote in the transfer
environment. If the information on transfer students is
inaccessible, or provided only on
an ad hoc or periodic basis, institutions are extremely limited in
their ability to promote
data-driven change.

Best Practice Five: linking information with policy initiatives
The � nal suggested best practice concerns one of the most
dif� cult challenges in
assessment: closing the loop or using the information to make
improvements in
instruction, curricula and services. Best practice states link their
transfer student
information system with policy initiatives aimed at improving
the environment for
transfer students and use the data to inform policy discussions
about system coordination
and inter-institutional transfer and articulation.
The data in Table 2 reveal that slightly less than half of the
states were able to identify
evidence that their collection of information on transfer
students have had transfer and
articulation dynamics within their states. One academic of� cer
summed up a sentiment
expressed by several of his colleagues:
I’m not sure the data is directly responsible for creating transfer
agreements,
but it validates transfer agreements … Data speaks very loudly
when people
say, “We have a problem with this”. Our data allows us to
respond to those
comments and questions and to say, “There does seem to be an
issue we need
to explore further”.
Other state of� cers suggested that there were clear links
between their transfer student
information systems and the improvement of the transfer

environment:
[The information system] had a lot of impact because it is the
basis for
decision making at the state level … This allows a great deal of
assessment of
success, for example, in graduation rates.
We got bit about six or eight years ago pretty hard with the
anecdotal, “I can’t
transfer” saw. It’s gone. It’s gone because there’s been a
broader awareness,
there’s been education, what’s reasonable to transfer. Six or
eight years ago it
was a signi� cant issue that is now a non-issue, because it was
resolved.
In other cases, state of� cers indicated that there were no
signi� cant state initiatives
devoted to improving the environment for transfer students, or
that state information
systems were not linked with efforts to improve outcomes for
transfer students. The
failure to relate the data in transfer student information systems
to policy initiatives
designed to improve transfer dynamics, sub-optimises the
assessment process. The
fundamental purpose of all assessment in higher education is to
use information to
improve the quality of programs and services. The failure of
state governments to use
data on transfer students to improve student academic outcomes
is no less a sub-optimi-
sation of the assessment process than the case of an academic
department that fails to
collect and use student outcomes information to improve its

instruction and curricula.
Conclusions
While questions about the legitimacy and appropriate roles of
government in higher
education are tremendously important in themselves, this study
focuses exclusively on
student transfer, a phenomenon that state governments in the US
have identi� ed as a key
policy issue and one that they are uniquely suited to address
(Russell, 2000). State higher
education agencies are in a propitious position to collect
information on transfer students
and to use the information in a positive way to improve
outcomes for transfer students.
State higher education of� ces also affect the priorities and
behaviors of institutions. If
state higher education agencies make improvement of the
transfer process a greater
priority, it is likely that it will become more of a priority for
institutions.
A public commitment by state higher education agencies to
assess the transfer
function and to use the results to improve the transfer process is
a powerful message
about the need to increase access and participation rates in
higher education, particularly
for under-represente d populations. The results from this study
are somewhat mixed.
There is clearly the capacity among state agencies to collect,

manipulate and report data
on transfer students. However, there is also varying commitment
to articulate policy
objectives and to design and use information systems in a
manner that leads to improved
opportunities and outcomes for students.
A study that benchmarks best practices in the assessment of the
transfer function by
state, regional or provincial higher education agencies may be
of considerable value to
institutional personnel who assess inter-institutional transfer
and articulation or who have
responsibility for managing the enrolment of transfer students.
It may also have value for
policy makers, and those who in� uence them, who are
interested in improving student
access and success within the entire range of post-secondary
educational opportunities,
but who have a particular interest in supporting institutions that
have an important
transfer function.
Notes on Contributor
JOHN F. WELSH is Associate Provost and Associate Professor
of Education at the
University of Louisville. He teaches courses in higher education
administration and
higher education � nance. His research interests focus on
assessment and information
systems in higher education. He has published in a variety of
higher education and
social science journals. Correspondence: John F. Welsh, Of� ce
of the University
Provost, 209 Grawemeyer Hall, University of Louisville,

Louisville, Kentucky 40292,
USA. E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
ADAMS, J. (1999) Learning from transfer data exchange ,
Michigan Community College Journal :
Research and Practice, 5(2), pp. 53–67.
AHUMADA, M. (1993) Inter-institutiona l transfer and
articulation : the role of databases and informatio n
systems, Community College Journa l of Research and Practice,
17(2), pp. 141–152.
ALSTETE, J. (1995) Benchmarking in Higher Education:
adapting best practice s to improve quality.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 5 (Washington , DC,
The George Washington University) .
BRAGG, A. K. (1989) Beyond the college : state policy impact
on student tracking systems, in: T. BERS
(Ed.) New Directions for Community Colleges: using student
trackin g systems effectively , No. 66 (San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass) .
CAMP, R. C. (1989) Benchmarking : the search for industr y
best practice s that lead to superio r
performance (Milwaukee , WI, American Society for Quality
Control/Quality Press).
268 J. F. Welsh
CLAGETT, C. G. & HUNTINGTON, R. (1991) Assessing the
transfer function : data exchange s and transfer
rates, Community College Review, 19(4), pp. 21–26.

COHEN, A. M. & BRAWER, F. (1987) The Collegiate Function
of Community Colleges (San Francisco ,
Jossey-Bass).
COHEN, A.M. & BRAWER, F. (1989) The American
Community College (San Francisco , Jossey-Bass) .
EWELL, P. T. (1995) Working over time: the evolution of
longitudina l student trackin g databases , in: P.
EWELL (Ed.) New directions for institutiona l research :
student tracking : new techniques , new
demands, No. 87 (San Francisco , Jossey-Bass) .
EWELL, P. T. & JONES, D. (1987) Principles of longitudina l
enrollment analysis : conductin g retentio n and
student � ow studies, in: J. A. MUFFO & G. W.
MCLAUGHLIN (Eds) A Primer on Institutiona l Research
(Tallahassee , FL, Associatio n for Institutiona l Research) .
EWELL, P. T. & JONES, D. (1991) Assessing and reportin g
student progress : a response to the new
accountability (Denver, State Higher Education Executive Of�
cers).
KINTZER, F. C. (1989) Articulatio n and Transfer: A Review of
Current Literature on Statewide and
Inter-Institutiona l Models and Trends. ERIC Document 311 946
(Trenton, NJ, New Jersey State
Department of Higher Education) .
KNOELL, D. M. & MEDSKER, L. L. (1965) From Junior to
Senior College: a national study of the transfer
student (Washington , DC, American Council on Education).
LENTH, C. & RUSSELL, A. B. (1991) Statewide Student Data

Systems and Capabilitie s to Report
Postsecondar y Graduatio n Rates (Denver, State Higher
Education Executive Of� cers).
MCGUINNESS, A. (1997) State Postsecondar y Education
Structure s Sourceboo k (Denver, Education
Commission of the States).
MCMURTRIE, B. (2001) Community college s become a force
in developin g nations worldwide, The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 May, 47(37), p. A44.
MCNAIR, C. J. & LEIBFRIED, K. (1992) Benchmarking : a
tool for continuou s improvement (New York,
John Wiley and Sons).
NEWMAN, F. (1987) Choosing Quality: reducin g con� ict
between the state and universit y (Denver,
Education Commission of the States).
RIFKIN, T. (2000) Improving Articulatio n Policy to Increas e
Transfer (Denver, CO, Community College
Policy Center, Education Commission of the States).
RODRIGUEZ, E. (1994) State-leve l Educationa l Reform:
collaborativ e roles for higher educatio n (Denver,
State Higher Education Executive Of� cers).
RUSSELL, A. B. (1999) The Status of Statewide Student
Transition Data Systems: a survey of SHEEO
agencies (Denver, State Higher Education Executive Of� cers).
RUSSELL, A. B. (2000) Issue Priorities and Trends in State
Higher Education (Denver, State Higher
Education Executive Of� cers).

RUSSELL, A. B. & CHISHOLM, M. (1995) Tracking in multi-
institutiona l contexts , in: P. EWELL (Ed.) New
Directions for Institutiona l Research: student tracking : new
techniques , new demands, No. 87 (San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass) .
TRAINER, J. F. (1996) New Direction s for Institutiona l
Research: inter-institutiona l data sharing, No. 89
(San Francisco , Jossey-Bass) .
WALLERI, R. D. (1990) Tracking and follow-up for community
college students : institutiona l and
statewide initiatives , Community/junior College Quarterly of
Research and Practice, 14(1), pp. 21–36.
66 Industrial Engineer
the day We strive for
Work Perfect
I support the development of evaluations for the performance
man-
agement and improvement of academic faculty and staff at
Javeriana
University. This involves factors such as information systems,
best
practices analysis and case studies.
One thing that allows me to do my job is the ability to work in
an
interdisciplinary professional environment, which recognizes

that ev-
eryone has something to contribute. I work for a university that
has a
mission to guide students in all the stages in undergraduate and
grad-
uate programs, as well as research and extension programs. My
job has
internal customers that are the key element of the system:
professors
and academic directors.
At Javeriana University, the educational process is based on a
rela-
tionship between professor and student. Professors have an
important
role in that relationship, which helps generate the development
of con-
sulting and extension projects. Javeriana University prepares
people
who can serve the country and the world at large, and I put my 2
cents
in the organization to achieve the strategic objectives. That’s
what gives
me the most satisfaction.
My perfect day begins with the preparation of reports related to
performance management. I use MicroStrategy BI and data
analysis
software such as Minitab. Then, I have meetings with professors
to
design and implement new improvements on projects to speed
up
processes. After lunch, I prepare to submit some policies and
changes
aligned with the last meeting I had with my boss. At the end of
the

workday, I meet with other people from my team to speak on
the prog-
ress achieved for the day and prepare ourselves for an
increasingly chal-
lenging day tomorrow.
I want to continue gaining experience in project management
and
process improvement. I’d also plan to prepare myself for
applying to
an MBA program in the U.S. or U.K.
— Interview by David Brandt
Alexander Cardenas Ramos
Project management coordinator -
professorial affairs
Javeriana University
Bogotá, Colombia
resumé
2014 Project management coordinator - professorial affairs,
Javeriana University, Bogotá, Colombia
2013 Entrepreneurship and leadership certificate,
University of Texas-Arlington
2013 Business intelligence consultant, LOGYCA-GS1 Colombia
2013 Joined IIE
2012 M.S., industrial engineering, Javeriana University,
Bogotá, Colombia
2011 Management analyst, Colsubsidio
2011 B.S., industrial engineering, Javeriana University,
Bogotá, Colombia
Copyright of Industrial Engineer: IE is the property of Institute

of Industrial Engineers and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2.docx

Similar to Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2.docx (20)

More from davezstarr61655

More from davezstarr61655 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2.docx