News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Sept. 27, 2007
In one way or another, leaders in higher education have been working for 20 years on trying to find valid and meaningful ways of measuring how well students learn. Although some institutions have developed their own measures, most college officials agree that there has been much less progress in revealing those results to the public and in finding ways to give students information they might use to compare their chances for success across different institutions, a point made bluntly and quite critically in last year’s report of the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education.
The discussion in recent months about how to alter that landscape has at times pitted the federal government against college officials: Education Department officials have accused some college leaders of dragging their feet and refusing to be held accountable for their performance, and many in higher education assert that the government has tried to impose an overly simplistic, overly standardized approach that fails to account for the rich diversity of colleges’ missions and students.
Today, the Education Department plans to announce that it is giving three college associations a $2.4 million grant to help them assess existing, and develop new, tests and other tools to measure student outcomes on a wide range of skills. Officials of the Education Department and the three groups — the Association of American Colleges and Universities, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges — herald the development as a breakthrough.
The embrace of the project by the three groups, their leaders said, shows that colleges are unafraid to assess their performance, but want to ensure that the measures used are appropriate, intelligently crafted, and fully represent the many kinds of skills that students need. And the department’s financial backing, said Sara Martinez Tucker, U.S. under secretary of education, shows that department officials meant it when they said they want colleges to “do it themselves,” rather than have the government do it to them.
“It is my hope and expectation that this represents a transitional moment in both the dialogue about how to measure student learning and, even more important, in the actual practices we use to do that,” said Carol Geary Schneider, president of the AACU, which is taking the lead on the project. “The primary responsibility for achieving educational excellence falls on colleges and universities themselves. And through this initiative, over 1,200 colleges and universities in three different associations will come together to move the assessment agenda forward, in ways that respect the best traditions and the most important purposes of American higher education.”
Critics of the push for comparing the learning outcomes of institutions and individuals (notably the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities) have complained that the Spellings Commission and the Education Department have rushed to adopt standardized measures of general education skills (such as writing and critical thinking) that are not up to the task. They have also argued that other crucial desirable “outcomes” of an undergraduate education, such as civic engagement or ethical reasoning, cannot be measured by existing tools, and that some outcome measures popular on campuses — such as electronic portfolios — may have more promise than standardized tools.
The proposal put forward by the three associations — which the Education Department chose over several competing proposals in a competition, Tucker said in an interview — deals with all three issues. In full, said Schneider, the project aims to find ways to measure the “broad array of learning outcomes that most colleges and universities consider essential to a good education,” such as those AACU laid out in its recent report, “College Learning for the New Global Century.”
The newly funded FIPSE project contains three main parts. NASULGC will lead the way on a project that will review the effectiveness of three major standardized measures of general education skills that are part of the Voluntary System of Accountability that the land-grant association and AASCU are crafting. Experts from the organizations that sponsor the Collegiate Learning Assessment, the Measure of Academic Progress and Proficiency and the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency will work together with other testing experts to assess the tests’ relative reliability and validity, so that “you will know it means when you score high or low on one of these tests,” said David Shulenburger, vice president for academic affairs at NASULGC.
“When you’ve got something new, like measuring critical thinking, the academy is skeptical, and it wants lots of testing done before we start making decisions on it,” he said. “We want it done right and we want to measure this by the standards that we use to measure the other kinds of research that we do. This grant will allow us to do that, to fill in that gap.”
AASCU’s part of the project (in which AACU will also participate) will involve an attempt to try to develop tools for measuring student outcomes that aren’t easily measured, such as civic engagement, teamwork, personal and social responsibility, and the like. This effort aims to respond to the idea that many of the traits that a good liberal arts or general education develops are hugely important, but not easily measurable and hence difficult to assess. The goal would be to develop metrics or “rubrics” that colleges could use to measure some of those traits in their students.
The third piece of the project, on which the Association of American Colleges and Universities will take the lead, seeks to tap into the significant work that many colleges have done to try to measure their students’ development using electronic portfolios. Many departments, schools and colleges have developed ways of using collections of student work to show progress not only on general skills like writing but on those tied to their fields of study. AACU’s goal, said Schneider, is to assess the quality of existing e-portfolio assessments on campuses and further develop and share the best ones.
Tucker, the U.S. under secretary, said the decision to finance the project follows on Education Secretary Margaret Spellings’ promise a year ago that she would “explore incentives to states and institutions to collect learning outcomes data.” The Spellings Commission’s report argued strenuously that the country needed better information about colleges’ performance in educating students, and needed it sooner rather than later, Tucker said.
But the department’s efforts to carry out the panel’s recommendations have been misinterpreted as seeking a government, or a “one size fits all,” solution, she said. “The report said that we need colleges to produce better information, and this signals what we’ve said all along: That we’re not doing it to them, we’re doing it with them.”
Tucker said she was pleased at the broad range of institutions – public and private, two-year and four-year — that will be participating in this project through their associations, and by the relatively tight timeline for completing it – 18 months.
Leaders of the associations involved in the effort said they welcomed the department’s approach, though they differed on how much they saw it as a change of heart. Constantine (Deno) Curris, president of AASCU, the state-college group, described it as a “significant step” by the department and a “statement that the department is supportive of the concept of building a Voluntary System of Accountability” like the one AASCU and NASULGC are developing.
Schneider noted that college leaders “have been frustrated” that they have not gotten much credit from department leaders and the Spellings Commission for the work they have been doing for years on assessing student learning. And whether department officials intended it or not, the discussion generated by the Spellings Commission “was heard as a call for standardized testing, primarily if not exclusively.”
What’s important about the new grant, she said, is that it puts college officials and department leaders much more on the same page. “Everyone agrees that we have not been as transparent as we ought to be, as we might be,” she said. “The disagreement has not been about whether we should be accountable, but about making sure that we have forms of accountability that would actually strengthen learning,” for students and institutions. The cooperation between the government and college leaders makes that more likely, she said.
The extent to which the collaboration might represent a breakthrough might be most evident in the fact that even the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities — which has vigorously opposed department efforts to push colleges to use comparable, standardized measures of student learning — viewed the moment favorably.
“The idea of putting a competitive grant out there through FIPSE is a very positive development,” said Sarah A. Flanagan, vice president for government relations and policy development at the private college association. Flanagan said she had not seen the details of the proposal, so could not comment on every bit of its substance. But “we take this as a signal on [department officials’] part that they are willing to work in partnership with colleges in addressing some of the complex policy issues that face higher education.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Well. I hope the result is objective enough so that it can be applied to the for-profit institutions.
This will not only help us in regulating the for-profits but also help public in selecting institutions. This, in turn, can produce a healthy competition and held the college price at a reasonable level.
Duncan, at 9:20 am EDT on September 27, 2007
Congrats — excellent forward movement i.e. having three professional associations pilot a study on the “best” approaches to assessment of student learning. However, the three selected all represent the traditonal four-year and/or research university models of higher education. What about two-year colleges, public and private, that represent 50% of the 17 million students enrolled in US institutions? What was the Dept of Education thinking? Forget about those students, faculty, and assessment of thier learning? Whew, how did they miss that one!
Thomas Wylie, Provost at New England Institute of Technology, at 9:40 am EDT on September 27, 2007
Measuring and understanding how our students learn from the education experience an institution provides is a very complex process. Yet, many college leaders are still operating on the premises that this is something they have to promote in their institutions in order to meet some externally determined standards. This is the reason we are where we are today that is, we are unable to report to our internal and external stakeholders about what our students can do out there in the real world, as a result/outcome of their educational experience. As such, we are unable to use such information to make improvements in our academic offerings. The current attitude towards assessment of student learning outcomes is to generate “safe” data that superficially appear to reflect satisfactory student learning outcomes. Most of the data generated are to capture student learning via some common objective tests sufficient to report to an external accrediting body. Such data for most part is insufficient and does not lead to an understanding of how students are learning or tell us how or what needs improvement.I do believe that while the above said method and similar approaches are effective in providing some information regarding how our students are learning, I am convinced that we need to develop more sophisticated qualitative approaches (Albeit time consuming) to get to a deeper understanding of the issue. Colleges should be prepared to invest in establishing a department of assessment that would play a significant role in the college strategic plan. This would require that institutions go beyond the current trend of having a person coordinate the assessment activities for an entire college. This process I believe was established with the intention that that person would be mainly reporting out to an external accreditation body and nothing more. I truly believe that the assessment activities if properly conducted could be invaluable to an institution in terms of student retention, persistence and degree completion. As such, institutions should be thinking about establishing a central office for assessment that is sensitive to faculty needs and the needs of the students and other stakeholders.
Underdog, at 9:55 am EDT on September 27, 2007
How does this differ from having the Oil companies write their own regulations?
Brian, Director of Academic Advising, at 10:25 am EDT on September 27, 2007
Underdog is absolutely right. Assessment over such a large domain is very complex. Brian is wrong. The universities are not writing their own “regulations,” but are developing the procedures for assessing. What has been wrong with the “accountability” expected by the public is that they want simple answers to these complex issues. Sure, we believe education should make students better critical thinkers, but the usual assessment practices judge them on what they “know” not how they think. For example, in the discipline I taught, mathematics, we want to have students become better “problem solvers.” To my way of thinking this works best when we let the students “solve problems” themselves. Showing them how to solve types of problems is far less effective for a goal of having them become problem solvers. Yet, to produce a score that tells the public we are succeeding we “dethink” the process by requiring specific procedures the students need to follow when doing certain “types” of problems. Read George Polya’s little book, “How to Solve It,” in which he writes the role of a teacher is to help students “not too much and not too little,...” As a teacher, this is not an easy task. When I taught mathematics education courses I usually suggested that if we error, we should probably error on the side of “too little.” The obvious consequence of that is less is likely to be learned. However, remember the goal is not to teach the students what they should “know,” but to get them to be better “problem solvers.” Part of the job of teaching is to balance what students are expected to know and they are expected to think. Our assessment practices should also do both. The problem we have is the former is much easier to assess and the public finds it easier to understand. That is why I support the organizations efforts to find effective means of assessing the complex outcomes we want from our students’ educations.
Fred Flener, Retired, at 11:40 am EDT on September 27, 2007
Does anyone know how this move and/or the assessments decided upon will affect the accreditation process? Hazard a guess?
kgotthardt, at 12:10 pm EDT on September 27, 2007
Brian is right. To best assure fairness and reliability, those doing the testing must have no interest in the outcome of that testing.
JBM, at 2:15 pm EDT on September 27, 2007
I would just like to point out to the commentator who jabbed at for-profit colleges that some of us have used academic portfolios and other assessment tools for several years, regularly attend AAC&U meetings to keep tabs on trends in assessing student learning outcomes, and have maintained regional accreditation (NCA in our case). We take our core learning principles quite seriously and we keep trying to improve ouir ability to measure what our students learn.
Thank you for reading,
Michael
Michael D. Cook, General Education Program Director at Everest College—Phoenix, at 2:15 pm EDT on September 27, 2007
We appreciate the thoughtful comments from around the country as AAC&U begins this collaboration to develop effective quantitative and qualitative methods of assessing important learning outcomes. But we do want to provide one corrective note to a comment made above. While AASCU and NASULGC members are all 4-year institutions, AAC&U’s membership includes 2-year institutions as well. Our membership includes private and public institutions as well as both 2-year and 4-year institutions. In fact, some 2-year institutions are very active in our various assessment projects and in our Liberal Education and America’s Promise initiative designed to focus attention on a set of essential learning outcomes for all students.
Debra Humphreys, VP for Communications and Public Affairs at AAC&U, at 2:20 pm EDT on September 27, 2007
> Does anyone know how this move and/or the > assessments decided upon will affect the > accreditation process? Hazard a guess?> kgotthardt
My guess would be that the accreditation agency would expect us to do participate. They already expect assessment in place.
How far they’ll go in expecting good results is another question. Historically they’ve focused on processes and resources.
Faculty Person, at 6:10 pm EDT on September 27, 2007
These three initiatives directly address three of the greatest weaknesses of the Education Department’s tilt towards nationwide testing:
1. They investigate the validity of the existing popular standardized tests of learning outcomes, tests whose validity I am skeptical of.
2. They attempt to create a way of measuring some of the most vital outcomes which are not covered by the existing exams (civic engagement, and I hope civic learning/judgement).
3. They promote the use of what many believe to be a superior alternative to nationwide testing, namely the use of portfolios to assess learning outcomes.
Together, those represent a much healthier direction for higher education than the promotion of NSSE, CLA, etc. as some sort of nationwide measuring stick.
MKT, at 4:50 am EDT on September 28, 2007
And who exactly determines this? I failed to see any mention of what the labor market needs.
Rick, at 12:10 pm EDT on September 28, 2007
Now the Texans in the Department of Education are working toward doing for (to) the nation what has been done for (to) Texas. The Texas public education system has been in the thrall of these nabobs for some years now, and so far, this “reform” has produced a majority of Texas’s entering college freshmen needing remediation in math, reading or writing.
I shudder to think how that sort of “accountability” will transform (read “ruin) the best higher education system in the world.
A Texan, Department Head, History, at 12:25 pm EDT on October 1, 2007
I am rather appalled by this inability to see the obvious. The idea that assessing critical thinking is something new is just ignorant. If you want to know what critical thinking is, and how to assess it, the answers are easy. What is critical thinking? The ability to assess a position based on the quality of the thinking involved. How do we assess it? By seeing how students manage to assess positions, using the undisputed rules of thinking (aka logic). What kind of courses do that most directly? Philosophy courses. Assessing critical thinking has always been the primary goal of the grading process of philosophy courses. So, if you want to promote critical thinking, make philosophy courses compulsory.
Martin Weatherston, at 11:20 am EST on January 15, 2008
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
The Towson University Center for Geographic Information Sciences (TU-CGIS), a provider of superior GIS services in the ... see job
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
The nation’s first university, Penn is a world-renowned leader in education, research, and innovation. Situated on a ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
I have been in the academy for almost thirty years and have to say in all honesty that legislators, parents, students, and others have legitimate reasons to be concerned about accountability. Many of my colleagues over the years have operated with a sense of entitlement that is rarely afforded in the real world. When they fail to provide students with syllabi, to hold regular office hours, to do the research that is expected of them as professors, to attend faculty meetings, to maintain collegial relationships, and to follow university guidelines and policies, they send a clear message to the non-academic community that they view themselves as being above the law. Let’s face it, folks. We all know the type, and I dare to say we’re not just talking about a handful of colleagues. The lack of accountability in academia is rampant, and it’s time for state legislators to start clamping down.
The problem as I see it is that no matter how many assessment tools are forced upon faculty members, they will always look for ways to undermine the process. At my institution, a four-year public university in the upper Midwest, the faculty in my department created an elaborate portfolio requirement for all graduating seniors. They told the students that they could not graduate without submitting a portfolio. The department Chair was required to write a letter to the Registrar to inform the office that student X had submitted his/her portfolio, thereby meeting the requirement. Then the faculty refused to read the portfolios, which began piling up in the Chair’s office until he said enough is enough. To his way of thinking, it is unethical to require students to submit a document that the faculty then refuses to evaluate, but my colleagues evidently didn’t see it that way. They didn’t want to do the work. They were holding their own students accountable while refusing to apply the same standard to themselves.
A few years later the department eliminated the portfolio requirement but has yet to come up with an acceptable alternative. The faculty don’t believe in accountability, at least not the kind that legislators are trying to foist on us. As a result, faculty will find ways to skirt the issue whenever possible, and I dare say that many faculty expect the department Chair to assume all responsibility for producing and maintaining the data that the university demands to see.
I have become very cynical about the whole assessment issue. It was even suggested to me by a colleague that we should perhaps make up the data just to satisfy the administration. I learned long ago that the noble ideals I resonated to in the academy are just an illusion. Dishonesty, unethical behavior, arrogance, stupidity, pettiness, hypocrisy, and cowardliness are hallmarks of ivory tower that continues to crumble despite our best efforts to keep it from happening.
gianstefano, at 9:10 am EDT on September 27, 2007