The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 3 - 24

Desiree D. Zerquera * Juan G. Berumen * Jason T. Pender

First, assessment must be embraced as an
act of social justice, which requires a critical
examination of standing approaches. As demonstrated in the case above, SHaRE sought
alternative models once they realized the limitations of previous assessment efforts (i.e.,
the EBI) that placed an emphasis on student
satisfaction. This emphasis on satisfaction prevented SHaRE staff from capturing student
development and social-justice outcomes of
the curriculum. Without an explicit concern
for social justice, a critical analysis of previous assessment efforts, and the courage to try
something effectively creative, the successful development and implementation of the
CDTT would not have been possible.
Relatedly, the second implication of these
findings recognizes the value of developing
assessment tools that are grounded in the
learning outcomes and needs of one's own
organization. PAR provided a framework for
foregrounding the needs and perspectives
of organizational members. It also created
space for initial and ongoing feedback regarding the assessment process. This highlighted
shortcomings and allowed for revision of
assessment processes with regards to both
longstanding practices (i.e., EBI) and newlydeveloped ones (i.e., CDTT).
Lastly, these findings underscore the potential role of students in the assessment
process. Bensimon (2007) speaks of the imperative value of including practitioners' funds
of knowledge to understand what matters
to student success; this notion should be extended to the paraprofessional staff (e.g., RAs)
that is charged with achieving so many of the
goals of student affairs work. In the CDTT, the
perspective of RAs as community researchers
24

offered an insider/outside lens into the residential experiences of all students, illuminating experiences that may have otherwise been
missed by standard approaches. Further, selfreported gains are not always the most accurate
way of capturing student growth (Bowman,
2013), and institutions continuously struggle
with balancing how to collect assessment data
while not overburdening students with email
survey solicitations (Porter, Whitcomb, &
Weitzer, 2004). However, the CDTT provided
an alternative for continuous, accurate assessment from student observers. More assessment work should expand on this potential of
students as community researchers.

CONCLUSION
Even when assessment results from top-down
mandates, it must be (re)situated as an act of
social justice. Doing so resulted in a stronger
assessment process that produced findings
more relevant to improving the departmental
practices that shape students' experiences and
provided a space to use that understanding
for action. PAR itself is not the only alternative research approach that would strengthen
and enable assessment practice in this way.
However, as demonstrated here, PAR provided
a framework for reshaping assessment within
housing to better capture social justice outcomes and embody a social justice mission.
The individuals involved in designing and
implementing this assessment work were
motivated by their passion for social justice.
They wanted to conduct assessment in a way
that would align with this passion and produce
findings that would be meaningful to the
work they do. Unsatisfied by the existing approaches in their department, they instead
sought to develop one themselves that would

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 3