Consistency of the I-E-O-L Model and the Guidelines for Academic Management
Revisiting the Extended I-E-O Model for Student Survey Management
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52731/lir.v004.322Keywords:
I-E-O-L model, Student survey management, Institutional Research, Guidelines for Academic ManagementAbstract
The Guidelines for Academic Management (henceforth referred to as the Guidelines) issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) require Japanese universities to foster autonomy in learners and university management. As such, one of the ex-pected management processes is to establish institutional research (IR) on teaching and learning to grasp and visualize academic and educational outcomes. However, in many cases, the student surveys used to collect information for this purpose are conducted in a disjointed manner based on the business needs of each administrative department of the university, unrelated to IR. In those cases, data tabulation and analysis are completed within each survey, and it is, therefore, expected that the data is not fully utilized as panel data. In our IR practice, we utilize the I-E-O-L model, an extended version of the I-E-O model, to clarify issues and enhance the effi-ciency and sophistication of such student surveys. However, in this process, there have been instances where the cooperation of the various administrative departments was not forthcom-ing. Consequently, it is necessary to ascertain the consistencies between the I-E-O-L model and the Guidelines and to evaluate the efficacy of utilizing them as a foundation for IR staff to be engaged in student surveys sponsored by each administrative department and to seek collaboration.
References
Subcommittee on Universities, Central Council for Education, “Kyogaku Management Shishin [Guidelines for Academic Management],” 2020. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/ shingi/chukyo/chukyo0/toushin/1411360_00001.html (accessed Apr. 15, 2024).
Subcommittee on Universities, Central Council for Education, “Kyogaku Management Shishin (Tsuiho) [Supplement to the Guidelines for Academic Management],” 2023. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20230228-mxt_daigakuc01-000004749_1.pdf (accessed Apr. 15, 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.
T. Yamada, “Manabi to Seichoh wo Unagasu Assessment Design [Assessment Design to Pro-mote Learning and Growth],” Between, no. Oct-Nov, pp. 32–34, 2013. https://www.shinken-ad.co.jp/between/backnumber/pdf/2013_10_assessment.pdf (accessed Apr. 15, 2024).
S. Aihara, “Development of Comprehensive I-E-O Model Incorporating Alternative Engage-ment: How to Measure Learning Outcomes of Japanese College Students,” in 2012 IIAI In-ternational Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics, IEEE, Sep. 2012, pp. 303–308. doi: 10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2012.66.
Author 1, Author 2, Author 3, Author 4, K. Anegawa, Author 5, M.A. Arbib, ed., The Hand-book of Brain Theory and Neural Networks, MIT Press, 1998. S. Matsumoto, K. Takamatsu, S. Imai, T. Inakura, K. Anegawa, and M. Mori, “The I-E-O-L Model and Student Survey Management,” IIAI Lett. Institutional Res., vol. 3 (LIR135), pp. 1–6, 2023, doi: 10.52731/lir.v003.135.
K. Anegawa, “Benchmarking as a Method for Analyzing Issues in the Waseda University Student Survey,” Waseda Rev. Educ., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 73–83, 2017. https://waseda.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/36493/files/WasedaKyoikuHyoron_31_1_Anegawa.pdf (accessed Apr. 15, 2024).
K. Anegawa, “Waseda daigaku ni okeru enrollment management no tenkai [Development of enrolment management at Waseda University],” IDE, no. 598, pp. 60–64, 2018.
W. Samuelson and R. Zeckhauser, “Status quo bias in decision making,” J. Risk Uncer-tain., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–59, Mar. 1988, doi: 10.1007/BF00055564.
