English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Policymakers and institutional leaders in higher education too often make decisions based on descriptive data analyses or even anecdote when better analysis options could produce more nuanced and more valuable results. Employing the setting of higher education program evaluation at a midwestern regional public university, for this study we compared analysis approaches using basic descriptive analyses, regression, standard propensity score matching (PSM), and a mixture of PSM with continuous variables, coarsened exact matching, and exact matching on categorical variables. We used three examples of program evaluations: a freshman seminar, an upper division general education program intended to improve cultural awareness and respect for diverse groups, and multiple living learning communities. We describe how these evaluations were conducted, compare the different results for each type of method employed, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each in the context of program evaluation.

Improving Institutional Evaluation Methods: Comparing Three Evaluations Using PSM, Exact and Coarsened Exact Matching