The Implementation and Systematic Reconstruction of the I-E-O-L Model for Streamlining and Advancing Student Surveys

Keywords: I-E-O-L Model, Institutional Research, Student Survey Management, Inventorying Student Surveys, Consensus Building

Abstract

This study proposes the I-E-O-L model, an extension of Astin’s Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) model, as a comprehensive framework for managing student surveys. The I-E-O-L model introduces the "Life Career (L)" component to incorporate postgraduation data, enabling a holistic evaluation of student growth and long-term educational impacts. This model aligns with the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’s (MEXT) Guidelines for Academic Management, emphasizing its relevance to higher education policy in Japan. Three case studies illustrate the utility of the model: 1) visualizing survey implementation promotes shared understanding and collaboration among stakeholders, 2) aligning survey frameworks with MEXT guidelines enhances institutional research (IR) activities, and 3) systematic reviews and “inventorying” of fragmented surveys reduce redundancy and improve survey reliability and validity. These practices collectively streamline survey operations, reduce respondent fatigue, and enable data-driven educational improvements. While the I-E-O-L model shows significant potential for application across diverse educational contexts, its adaptability extends beyond Japan, as supported by international research and practice. By leveraging this model, institutions can enhance survey efficiency, obtain deeper insights into student outcomes, and foster educational quality. These findings highlight the model’s effectiveness in improving survey-based decision-making in higher education.

References

Subcommittee on Universities, Central Council for Education, “Guidelines for Academic Management,” [in Japanese], 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20200206-mxt_daigakuc03-000004749_001r.pdf (accessed Dec. 18, 2024).

Subcommittee on Universities, Central Council for Education, “Supplement to the Guidelines for Academic Management,” [in Japanese], 2023. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20230228-mxt_daigakuc01-000004749_1.pdf (accessed Dec. 18, 2024).

A. W. Astin, What matters in college? : Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1993.

A. W. Astin, Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Phoenix, Arz.: Oryx Press, 1993.

S. Matsumoto, K. Takamatsu, S. Imai, T. Inakura, K. Anegawa, and M. Mori, “The I-E-O-L Model and Student Survey Management - Extended the I-E-O Model and its Application -,” IIAI Lett. Institutional Res., vol. 3 (LIR135), pp. 1–6, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.52731/lir.v003.135

S. Matsumoto, K. Takamatsu, S. Imai, T. Inakura, and M. Mori, “Consistency of the I-E-O-L Model and the Guidelines for Academic Management - Revisiting the Ex-tended I-E-O Model for Student Survey Management -,” IIAI Lett. Institutional Res., vol. 4 (LIR322), pp. 1–6, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.52731/lir.v004.322

Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). “Graduate Outcomes Survey Meth-odology Statement Part Two: Survey Design and Implementation (Version 1.1, 18/19 Collection),” Cheltenham, UK: Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2020. https://www.hesa.ac.uk (accessed Feb. 25, 2025).

G. D. Kuh, “The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations,” New directions for institutional research, 141, pp.5-20, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283

OECD, “Tuning-AHELO Conceptual Framework of Expected and Desired Learning Outcomes in Economics,” OECD Education Working Papers, No. 59, OECD Pub-lishing, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kghtchwb3nn-e

S. Rutherford, T. Zhang, S. Azoulay, V. Oddo, N. Oriol, N. Timus, E. Luppi, V. Riklefs, M.J. Costa, D. Lopes, F. Huarte, N.A. Konvalinka, F.J.C. Garcia, Z. Zey-bekoğlu, J. Hatil, O. Bershadska, O. Poddenezhnyi, “Curriculum and assess-ment-European University Association, Thematic Peer Group Report,” Learning & Teaching Paper #16, European University Association, 2022.

T. Yamada, “Assessment Design to Promote Learning and Growth,” [in Japanese], Between, no. Oct-Nov, pp. 32–34, 2013. https://www.shinken-ad.co.jp/between/backnumber/

pdf/2013_10_assessment.pdf (accessed Dec. 20, 2024).

S. Aihara, “Development of Comprehensive I-E-O Model Incorporating Alterna-tive Engagement: How to Measure Learning Outcomes of Japanese College Stu-dents,” in 2012 IIAI International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics, IEEE, Sep. 2012, pp. 303–308. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2012.66

R. Yamada, “Affective fulfillment and learning outcomes of college students: Analysis of CSS and JCSS,” [in Japanese], Daigaku Ronsyu, vol. 40, pp. 181–198, 2009.

D. J. Weerts and J. Vidal, Enhancing alumni research: European and American perspectives. Jossey-Bass, 2005.

K. Yoshimoto, “Evaluation of Educational Outcome through Graduates,” [in Japanese], Res. Acad. Degrees Univ. Educ., vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 77–107, 2007.

K. Anegawa, “Benchmarking as a Method for Analyzing Issues in the Waseda University Student Survey,” [in Japanese], Waseda Rev. Educ., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 73–83, 2017.

K. Anegawa, “Development of enrollment management at Waseda University,” [in Japanese], IDE, no. 598, pp. 60–64, 2018.

W. Samuelson and R. Zeckhauser, “Status quo bias in decision making,” J. Risk Uncertain., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–59, 1988. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564

S. Matsumoto, K. Takamatsu, S. Imai, T. Inakura, and M. Mori, “Novel Methods and Application of Visualizing Web Survey Responses: Technology-Enhanced Quality Improvement in Surveys (TEQUIS) ,” Proceedings of Ninth International Congress on Information and Communication Technology. ICICT 2024 2024. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 1054. XS. Yang, R.S. Sherratt, N. Dey, and A. Joshi, eds., Springer, 2024, pp. 569–578. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-5035-1_45

S. Matsumoto, K. Takamatsu, S. Imai, T. Inakura, and M. Mori, “A proposal for questionnaire design that takes into account the mental load when answering in terms of the volume of the questionnaire,” [in Japanese] Proceedings of the Meeting on Japanese Institutional Research, 12, pp. 148-149, 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.50956/mjir.12.0_148_1

Published
2025-03-30
Section
Practical Papers