The Degree Qualifications Profile

Transcription

1 Web FAQ The Degree Qualifications Profile This on-line review of questions often raised with regard to the Degree Qualifications Profile published in January 2011 by Lumina Foundation is updated quarterly. If you wish to suggest additional questions that might be addressed, please send them to Similarly, if you believe any of the responses might be improved in some way, please let us know. Your assistance will contribute not only to this FAQ list but to the development of a second iteration of the DQP itself. A brief four-page version of this FAQ in printed form may be obtained from the Lumina Foundation. What is a degree qualifications profile? The DQP proposes an understanding of what the associate, bachelor s, and master s degrees should mean in terms of what recipients should know and be able to do. What is the source of that understanding? The authors of the DQP reflected on principal elements of a broad consensus within U.S. higher education as they sought to frame a call for demonstrated quality. They considered also the use of such profiles in Europe and Australia. They consulted the expectations of regional and professional accreditation associations, exemplary institutional criteria for student accomplishment, and influential statements such as the Essential Learning Outcomes published by the Association of American Colleges and Universities. What is the Lumina Foundation? Based in downtown Indianapolis, IN, Lumina Foundation is a private, independent foundation established in August 2000 through the sale of private corporate assets to the financial services company now known as Sallie Mae. With invested assets now in excess of $1 billion, Lumina ranks among the nation s top 40 private foundations. Its mission, to help people achieve their potential by expanding access to and success in education beyond high school, is defined by Goal 2025 to achieve by that date a population in which 60 percent hold highquality degrees and credentials. How does Lumina Foundation pursue its mission of access and success? In three ways: by identifying and supporting effective practice, by encouraging effective public policy, and by using its communications and convening capacity to build public will for change. The foundation has worked with and made grants to many colleges, universities, peer foundations, associations and other organizations that share its goals. In 2010, the foundation offered nearly 100 grants ranging from $3,125 to $2.8 million for a total commitment of nearly $43.4 million. Why did Lumina Foundation decide to publish a degree qualifications profile? For several reasons all of which are related to Goal 2025 described above. First, for a degree completion goal to be as meaningful as possible, there must be a shared understanding of what degrees represent. Second, working

2 2 towards more degrees for Americans must reflect a commitment to quality. Third, if U.S. higher education is to maintain the diversity and autonomy that are a source of its strength, it must communicate far more effectively what it seeks to accomplish to its students, to employers, and to members of its communities. Why does the U.S. need a Degree Qualifications Profile? There is little agreement in the U.S. about what constitutes a degree. The number of credits required for different degrees and the extent to which degree outcomes are stated are inconsistent. Without a clear understanding of outcomes, students often question the value of courses, fail to appreciate the structure of their curriculum, and struggle to gain a coherent perspective on their education. Similarly, faculty members may be proficient in their respective disciplines without understanding and promoting their institution s priorities for all students. Without clear learning outcomes, course and faculty evaluation may appear arbitrary and ineffectual. Efforts to recognize prior learning, including work or military-based experiential learning, require clear outcomes. Indeed, institutions and programs are facing increasing demands from accreditors to clarify learning outcomes. What is the DQP meant to do? In addition to providing a reference for the discussion of educational outcomes, the DQP is intended to address related priorities, from strengthening the practice of regional accreditation to supporting faculty in the classroom. It proposes a common vocabulary for sharing good practice, offers a foundation for better public understanding of what institutions of higher education do, and sets forth reference points for accountability that are stronger than test scores, graduation rates, research dollars, student satisfaction ratings, or job placements. Is the DQP being used? More than 100 institutions in 30 states are testing the DQP under the auspices of organizations working with Lumina Foundation, including the Council of Independent Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Higher Learning Commission, and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. How is the DQP being used and how might it be used in the future? As a rubric for identifying gaps in institutional outcomes statements, as a standard for the specificity and measurability of outcomes, as a platform for discussion of college preparedness with high school educators, as a resource for students evaluating the promotions of colleges, as a curricular positioning system enabling students to track their routes toward degrees, as a means of encouraging students to consider progressing to the next level (associate to bachelor s, bachelor s to master s), as a resource graduates might use in documenting their readiness for work, and as a platform colleges and universities might use to interpret accreditation results for their publics. Is the DQP meant to promote standardization? To the contrary, the DQP offers an opportunity for institutions to demonstrate more clearly what makes them different from their peers and competitors. Similarly, departments can make more definitive statements about their approach to educating their students. And institutions that have excelled in delivering student learning outcomes will find in the DQP a platform for turning implicit excellence into an explicit statement of accomplishment. Note that Lumina has explicitly called the document a Profile in the manner of that iconic outline of Alfred Hitchcock. Faculty members, accrediting bodies, state systems, national organizations, and institutions are artists challenged with turning a profile into multiple portraits. Each institution will determine what roles a DQP could play in its environment. Each will determine how stringently to enforce its outcomes in qualifying students for the award of degrees. Each may choose to adapt the five learning outcomes categories in the Beta document. Each may add according to its mission further caregories and specific competency statements. There are two requirements for turning the Profile into a portrait: active verbs for competency/student learning

3 3 outcome statements and a sample of assessments that would elicit student demonstration of those outcomes. That convergence of form leads away from standardization of content. Does the DQP recommend particular curricula or pedagogies? Again, no. The learning outcomes defined in the DQP may be approached by many paths and achieved through many pedagogical approaches. By shifting the focus from routine measures (credit hours, seat time, grades) to learning outcomes, the DQP is meant to encourage curricular and pedagogical diversity within the academy. Doesn t the DQP assume a prerogative properly reserved for academic officers and faculty members? That is not the intent. From the start, those engaged in developing the DQP have sought to convey their respect for the authority of academic officers and faculty members in curricular matters. Indeed, one of the four authors is a full-time faculty member. Moreover, the document is published as a beta release so as to invite faculty members and others to take part in its evolution. In fact, Lumina Foundation has published users guides directed specifically to faculty members and chief academic offices. By providing a platform on which faculty members, departments, and institutions can consider and develop (or reframe) their outcomes, the DQP is meant to support and facilitate the pursuit of this important academic prerogative. How might a faculty member use the DQP? The DQP can support a faculty member s highest priorities: more fully committed students, improved student learning, and the advancement of knowledge. By using the DQP as a context for a course syllabus, a faculty member can clarify the correspondence between the objectives of a course and those of a curriculum. Students will be able to understand far more fully how the emphases of a course build on earlier work and lead to more advanced study. And they will grasp how the cumulative work they are doing will lead to a degree that is meaningful and competitive. How will the extensive faculty participation required for refining, reshaping, and implementing a DQP be achieved? Those involved in exploring the potential of a DQP and adapting it into at least a preliminary portrait often represent a sub-set of the faculty. But with internal departmental demonstrations and discussions, the universe should expand. Does the DQP suggest that competencies and student learning outcomes are the same for majors as different from one another as, say, chemistry and history? The DQP is not discipline-specific. It addresses characteristics of student learning at each degree level and across five broad outcomes. The competences were written carefully as umbrellas for all fields, theoretical and applied. Well, then, what about learning outcomes for each of the disciplines? An initiative associated with Europe s Bologna Process and now flourishing as a pilot in several U.S. states, the Tuning process convenes discussions within disciplines to seek consensus on what students should learn as they progress. Faculty members define what should be learned, test those definitions with stakeholders (including employers), and refine their approaches. In short, Tuning concerns itself with programs while the DQP defines degrees. The two are complementary. To date, five state systems (Kentucky, Indiana, Minnesota, Texas, and Utah) have engaged in the process at the associate and bachelor s level in fields including biology, civil engineering, graphic arts/design, history, and social work. More such pilot projects are on the way. Because faculty members typically receive their education and are organized by field, it is natural that many respond to the DQP through the perspective of their field. But the disciplinary teams engaged in the Tuning USA projects have realized both the relationships and the distinctions between field and degree-level competencies. What if a college or university already publishes clearly defined learning outcomes?

4 4 It is an exception and deserves recognition. But clear outcomes are not enough. They must be specific enough to invite assessment. And assessment must lead in turn to institutional strengthening. The DQP offers an example of explicitness that institutions may use in evaluating the statements they have developed. Specifically, the DQP challenges such institutions to evaluate their outcomes with respect to the following questions: (1) Are these outcomes specific and concrete enough so students can articulate what they mean? (2) Does each statement lead directly to a range of assessments currently used by faculty that could demonstrate that students have actually attained the outcomes. (3) Are the outcomes simply wish lists or is attainment of these outcomes enforceable? Questions such as these may guide institutions in the process of turning their profiles into rich portraits with expanded sets of outcomes and matching examples of assessments. In short, the DQP offers such institutions an example of explicitness they can use in revising the statements they have previously developed. What if the outcomes proposed in the DQP understate the academic objectives of an institution? The structure of the DQP invites institutions to define areas where their expectations of students exceed those that are proposed. In fact, a department, college or university may use the DQP to clarify areas where expectations are exceptionally high. In some cases, they may choose to rewrite the learning outcomes statements at a higher level of challenge. Some institutions may develop statements articulating three or four levels of performance within a specific competence. The DQP proposes a set of thresholds for attainment. Beyond those thresholds, it does not provide for the evaluation of how well a student demonstrates a particular type of knowledge, application, or skill. Doesn t that suggest an acceptance of minimal competencies? This legitimate issue offers a reminder that judgments of how well remain the prerogative of faculty and are reflected in grading and in other forms of recognition. The DQP does not intrude on this territory. Moreover, in adapting the DQP to express its expectations and standards, an institution might itself develop statements articulating three or four levels of performance within each specific competence. How is the DQP structured? Through its organization according to five areas of student learning Specialized Knowledge, Broad Knowledge, Intellectual Skills, Applied Learning and Civic Learning the DQP emphasizes that students must be familiar with issues and methods outside their primary area of study if they hope to succeed in the workforce and in further study. While each of the five areas is described independently, the areas clearly interact. An assumption throughout is that students must be able to apply their learning in a variety of settings and to solve problems that span disciplines. Why doesn t the DQP deal with important subjective values such as ethics and tolerance? While these important values and capacities may be integral to an institution s mission, they are distinct from the more tangible and assessable outcomes that are the focus of the DQP. But the specificity of the DQP can perhaps offer a standard for the definition of more subjective curricular and co-curricular objectives. What about transfer students? The DQP can address transfer and articulation questions through its emphasis on what students have learned in pursuit of the credits they have accumulated. Students with documented competencies should find transfer far easier. Does the DQP address employers concerns? The student learning outcomes defined by the DQP are priorities for employers. In addition to expecting deep learning within disciplines, the DQP defines skills and knowledge that are critical in workforce settings. How does the DQP relate to the Common Core?

5 5 The DQP provides a platform for examining alignment between the Common Core Standards for K-12 education and what college-ready students should know and be able to do. It thus represents the academy s side of a critical conversation. As the DQP continues to evolve, it should define the high school/college alignment in greater detail. Why doesn t the DQP define more advanced degrees? The authors of the DQP considered where the need for clarity is greatest at the associate, bachelor s and master s degree levels. Future iterations of the DQP may consider or at least more fully acknowledge issues distinctive to doctoral studies and professional degrees. Is the DQP simply a synthesis of existing ideas or is it meant to be transformative? It offers a transformative synthesis. Because the authors consulted hundreds of sources on student learning outcomes in the United States and abroad, the DQP reflects much that has been learned, expressed and implemented. But as it advances the paradigm shift from a focus on what is taught to a focus on what should be learned, the DQP proposes requirements for awarding degrees at three levels (associate, bachelor s, master s) in terms of concrete and specific competencies. Moreover, for each competency at each degree level, the DQP calls for assignments, exhibits, and exercises that may be assessed. The DQP strongly suggests that credit hours and grade averages are not sufficient indicators of student success. In order to receive a degree, a student should demonstrate the competencies their institution has defined. Because of the DQP s particular strengths, that expectation can and should become transformative. First, the DQP expresses requirements for awarding degrees in terms of concrete and specific competencies that are set forth through clear verbs describing what students should know and do. Second, it does this at three degree levels for each competency, increasing the specificity and challenge from one degree level to the next, thus clarifying the differences between these levels the ratchet principle. Third, for each competency at each degree level, the DQP requires that opportunities for assessment (essays, exhibits, laboratory exercises, test questions, etc.) be embedded. Fourth, the DQP frankly suggests that students who do not demonstrate the competencies expected by their institution should not be awarded degrees regardless of credits earned or grade point average attained. Fifth, and most importantly, the DQP is a Beta document, designed for iterative evolution by faculty, administrators, and students. All these together offer a public guarantee of the meaning of degrees. That is true transformation. Might use of the DQP require additional record-keeping? Yes. In addition to a standard transcript, a DQP would require the documentation of student competencies. There are nuts and bolts issues remaining to be addressed in this regard hardly surprising given the transformational nature of the DQP. But additional record keeping is likely to be necessitated in any event by increasing expectations for institutional disclosure of educational results. Record-keeping keyed to the DQP, which should document the acquisition of measureable competencies, should be more useful to institutions, to faculty members, and to students. How will the DQP evolve over time? Lumina Foundation is listening carefully to those using the DQP in order to make it more useful and more broadly applicable. In 2013, Lumina plans to begin working toward publishing a revised and perhaps expanded edition in January If you are interested in contributing to this work by making use of the DQP in your classroom, department, or institution, contact Lumina Foundation specifically, Marcus Kolb, program officer, mkolb@luminafoundation.org. Lumina welcomes opportunities to offer assistance in the use of the DQP. If you would like a Lumina Foundation representative to speak to your organization or meeting about the DQP, the Foundation will work with you on arrangements. And if you are already using the DQP at your institution, please let U.S. know so we can learn more about your efforts.

6 6 Why is it Lumina Foundation rather than the Lumina Foundation? No one knows. Lumina Foundation for Education, an Indianapolis-based private foundation, is committed to enrolling and graduating more students from college especially 21st century students: low-income students, students of color, first-generation students and adult learners. Lumina s goal is to increase the proportion of Americans who hold high-quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by Lumina pursues this goal in three ways: by identifying and supporting effective practice, through public policy advocacy, and by using our communications and convening power to build public will for change.