The purpose of this study was to determine staff attitudes and preferences toward outcomes assessment in Maryland's public, undergraduate institutions. The data were collected in Fall, 1989. Over 400 chief academic officers, division chairs, and faculty from 26 two- and four-year institutions were surveyed.

An analysis of the data indicated the following: (1) That four-year faculty and administrators were less positive than two-year staff about the value and feasibility of outcomes assessment. (2) That, although there is not active opposition among either institutions' faculty and staff to the value of assessment, there was considerable lack of knowledge and suspicion of the program. Means of the responses to questions dealing with value were on the positive side of 3.0 on a five-point scale. (3) However, faculty and staff in both types of institutions were even less sanguine about the feasibility of assessment; the means were near or below 3.09 for most groups. (4) There was general agreement about those indicators which should be assessed; in general faculty and administrators agreed that the most important measures were employer satisfaction and transfer success. (5) Staff in both types of institutions did not like "rising-junior examinations" or "graduate earnings." (6) There was overwhelming agreement that results of assessment should be used to improve curricula and instruction. (7) However, only 57 percent though that assessment would improve instruction--supposedly the major reason for its imposition.

These results and others suggest that faculty and staff are relatively neutral about the idea of outcomes assessment. One gets the sense when viewing the statistical information derived from 76 questions and from volunteered comments that the major concerns rest with the methods of implementation and use of the data. Much of what faculty and staff would like to have assessed are already measured by many colleges. The data also suggest that faculty need to become actively involved in what is likely to be an expensive program in terms of dollars and time.

The study includes a set of recommendations for state and institutional activities to increase faculty involvement and for case study research.