|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Value-Added Assessment |
For most of its history, American higher education has operated according to
a “trust the academy” philosophy for gauging academic quality, specifically, the value added to students’ knowledge by institutions.
The faith of universities’ stakeholders is required, because the existing quality assurance system is built largely upon input measures (e.g.
SAT/ACT scores, spending per student), rather than metrics related to educational outcomes. While efforts to develop more robust assessments of student
learning in higher education are underway, they exist at the margins rather than mainstream. Progress in this area has been stymied by a lack of consensus
on how or even whether to pursue student learning assessment, aided by an implicit sense that the United States, as a world leader in higher education,
does not need such an initiative.
It is time for states and their colleges and universities, in conjunction with regional accrediting agencies, to lead the development of a consensus
model for assessing the value added from undergraduate student learning. Public institutions are the logical leaders for such a movement, because
they educate the vast majority of the nation’s undergraduate students, thus providing a “critical mass” for examination and best
practice cultivation. Also, a value-added system could better reflect their contributions to student learning, as the prevailing philosophy of “quality
= price + selectivity” does not fit the admissions profile of many public institutions. Public higher education arguably has the longest and
most substantial history of “first steps” in the area of public accountability.What would such a model entail? To be fully effective,
it should:
Draw on recognized and tested national instruments and be embedded in state, system, and accreditation policy according to particular
educational and workforce priorities.
This promotes inter-institutional and interstate comparability that is essential for identifying pockets of promise and persistent weaknesses.
At the same time, such an approach respects legitimate differences in human capital needs between states and systems.
Focus primarily on general intellectual skills (e.g., communication, reasoning/analysis, literacy).
These include skills obtained through the general education curriculum (or core requirements) as well as those developed through upper division
courses, but not discipline-specific content. This focus of analysis offers several advantages. First, general intellectual skills are universal
across diverse institutional types and there is growing consensus about their form and content, facilitated by groups such as the Association
of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). This allows for measures that reach the broadest possible cross-section of students and steers
clear of the comparability issues that would dog discipline-specific assessment. Perhaps more significantly, general intellectual skills provide
the building blocks for essential career and citizenship roles. While some states or systems may include elements such as information management
skills and technology literacy in their programs, general intellectual skills should receive major emphasis.
Employ a multi-faceted approach based on representative samples of students.
As the following analysis indicates, there are three primary means of gauging student learning—direct, indirect, and applied. Each measures
a different facet of the total picture, presenting distinct advantages and drawbacks, both practical and philosophical. Pursuing a complementary
approach provides a more comprehensive assessment and allows for the strengths of one mechanism to compensate for the weaknesses of another. A
multi-faceted approach is important because some metrics are geared more toward internal management or institutional improvement, while others
are more appropriate for informing policymakers and the general public. Using representative samples, with selected over-samples for groups of
particular interest, offers a cost-effective and minimally intrusive means of gaining valid insights about the state of student learning and the
learning environment.
Clearly, such a system will be difficult to develop and will require a degree of trial and error. At the same time, it will represent an essential
next step in the evolution of American higher education. As the expectation of postsecondary education edges closer to universality, colleges and
universities must be prepared for a concomitant increase in scrutiny. Seasoned observers have pointed out the irony of the academy, as an institution
dedicated to discerning the truth through evidence, being so seemingly resistant to measuring quality through evidence. It is an irony that puzzles—and
frustrates—a widening circle of stakeholders.
Looking ahead, a convergence of factors strongly suggests that a successor to the “trust the academy” approach to learning measurement
is needed. The nation’s educational competitiveness continues to slip, particularly in diploma and degree production. Higher education prices
continue to rise, leading stakeholders to increasingly question the value of higher education’s product. The evolution of the standards movement
in elementary and secondary education, exemplified by the No Child Left Behind Act, raises important and controversial questions about the
purpose, scale, and scope of learning assessment. Competition for public resources is intensifying, further underscoring the fiscal vulnerability
of “discretionary” services such as higher education.
Finally, a growing number of national groups, including the U.S. Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, are
raising the profile of learning assessment on the national agenda. Time is running out for the “trust the academy” approach to gauging
student learning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
