Pat Monaghan’s journal entries for the 98th annual meeting of the AAC&U
I. Thursday, January 26, 2012: Today, I took notes at two presentations that I thought might have some relevance to Doane. The first concerned some steps that faculty members at Saint Francis University, DePauw University and Wabash College have taken to address certain problems identified by the authors of Academically Adrift. The second concerned the issue of how to assess and measure student learning outcomes.
1. The first session I took notes on was entitled “Responding to Academically Adrift: Panel Discussion of Campus Actions.” The panelists were Pedro Muino, Professor of Chemistry, Saint Francis University; Kerry Pannell, Dean of the Faculty, DePauw University; and Gary Phillips, Dean of the College, Wabash College.
Academically Adrift is a recent work (2011, U. Chicago Press) by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. Both authors are sociologists, the former at NYU and the latter at the University of Virginia. In the work, Arum and Roska question the value of modern undergraduate education. Here is a synopsis of the work taken from its publisher’s webpage:
In spite of soaring tuition costs, more and more students go to college every year. A bachelor’s degree is now required for entry into a growing number of professions. And some parents begin planning for the expense of sending their kids to college when they’re born. Almost everyone strives to go, but almost no one asks the fundamental question posed by Academically Adrift: are undergraduates really learning anything once they get there? For a large proportion of students, Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa’s answer to that question is a definitive no. Their extensive research draws on survey responses, transcript data, and, for the first time, the state-of-the-art College Learning Assessment, a standardized test administered to students in their first semester and then again at the end of their second year. According to their analysis of more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, 45 percent of these students demonstrate no significant improvement in a range of skills – including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing – during their first two years of college. As troubling as their findings are, Arum and Roksa argue that for many faculty and administrators they will come as no surprise – instead, they are the expected result of a student body distracted by socializing or working and an institutional culture that puts undergraduate learning close to the bottom of the priority list. Academically Adrift holds sobering lessons for students, faculty, administrators, policy makers, and parents – all of whom are implicated in promoting or at least ignoring campus culture. Higher education faces crises on a number of fronts, but Arum and Roksa’s report that colleges are failing at their most basic mission will demand the attention of us all. (
Here is a link to a more detailed summary of the work at insidehighered.com:
(
Here is a link to a number of discussions of the work in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
And here a link to a review of that book (among others) at the New York Review of Books:
Not surprisingly, given the attention Academically Adrift has drawn in cyber-space, the book was a hot topic of conversation in a variety of different presentations at the conference.
At this point in my discussion, it is important to note that all of the panelists avoided any discussion of the soundness of the methodology employed by Arum and Roksa. (Indeed, the panelists actually seemed to presuppose the truth of the central thesis advanced by those authors.) Rather, each one of the panelist’s stated aim was merely to describe how their respective institutions had taken steps to address various of the issues and concerns raised by Arum and Roksa’s work.
Professor Muino went first. He began by describing some aspects of the demographics of the student body at Saint Francis University. It sounded very similar to that of the student body at Doane. Many students originated from rural areas. Many were first generation college students. And many were student athletes.
As Professor Muino saw it, Saint Francis University is taking three principle steps to address the issues raised by Academically Adrift. First, students were required to take a first year writing seminar in which a writing test is administered both at the beginning and at the end of the semester. This is supposed to determine the extent to which the writing ability of the students improves (assuming it does). Second, the members of the faculty were expected to have high expectations regarding the quality of the work of their students. And third, the members of the faculty were expected to make those expectations clear to those students. Regarding the third point, one concern Professor Muino shared is that apparently some faculty members worry that if they hold students to high standards, then students will voice their displeasure through course evaluations, which may have a negative impact on faculty career trajectories. This elicited from the crowd what I can only describe as a groan of recognition.
Dean Pannell went second. From her remarks, it was clear that Depauw University is taking many of the same steps that Saint Francis University is taking to respond to the issues raised by Arum and Roksa’s research. A writing seminar is required of all first year students, and a capstone course is required for all majors. On the other hand, Dean Pannell raised a number of concerns in addition to the one raised by Professor Muino. First, according to Dean Pannell, there is an uneven distribution of expectations among the faculty at DePauw. In particular, whereas some faculty members are satisfied with the quality of student work, others are not. Second, there is a certain disconnect between students’ views concerning how much time studying other students should be spending and students’ views concerning how much time studying they themselves should be spending (i.e. whereas Jack thinks it’s all well and good to require Jill to spend twenty hours per week studying, Jack thinks that certainly he doesn’t need to spend twenty hours per week doing so). And third, Dean Pannell also seemed to suggest that certain members of the board of trustees were simply unwilling to go along with changes that may eventually result in solutions to many of the problems raised by Arum and Roksa. No reasons were cited for this other than a general aversion to change.
Dean Phillips went third. He too touted many of the same steps being taken to address the problems. Yet he also introduced an additional challenge, which is that Wabash College is without a teaching center. With such a center in place, he felt that it would be much easier to bring together faculty to solve the problems raised by Arum and Roksa, and also to work collaboratively on a variety of other topics, e.g. curriculum reform.
Two critical thoughts I had about the presentations: First, it did not seem that the various curricular components touted (e.g. writing seminars, capstone courses) were ones that were recently introduced by the relevant institutions to respond to the problems Arum and Roksa have identified. Rather, it seemed that those components were relatively long-standing components of the general education curriculum at those institutions. In that case, however, I fail to see how any of those components can constitute a response to the challenged posed by Academically Adrift. After all, if writing seminars and capstone courses have been in place for some time now, yet the problems that Arum and Roksa believe exist still remain, then there has to be more to the solution to those problems than writing seminars and capstone courses. Second, it was not clear to me that any of the panelists had addressed one of the central points made by Arum and Roksa, which is that contemporary students spend far too much time updating their facebook accounts, playing video games, working, engaging in sports and extra-curricular activities, socializing, etc., and far too little time actually studying.
2. The second session I took notes on was entitled “Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: What Do We Know and What Needs to Happen Next?” The two panelists were Stanley O. Ikenberry, President Emeritus, University of Illinois, and Former President, American Council on Education; and Ralph Wolff, President, Western Association of Schools and Colleges.
President Emeritus Ikenberry went first, and confined his discussion to the current state of student learning outcomes assessment as he saw it.
Dr. Ikenberry began his discussion by identifying certain contextual features that form the backdrop of contemporary higher education. First, the cost of higher education for students is constantly on the rise, often at a seemingly uncontrollable rate. Second, the cost increases dictate that many students are taking on an increasing, sometimes unsustainable, amount of debt. Third, this amount of debt has naturally given rise to the question of whether the investment in higher education is worth the return on that investment. Here Dr. Ikenberry specifically cited the issues raised by Academically Adrift.
Having established the context for the discussion, Dr. Ikenberry turned to the issue of what has been accomplished concerning the empirical measurement of student learning outcomes. According to him, much has been accomplished in this area. There is much more involvement in this regard by college and university presidents and provosts than there was just ten years ago. There is much more transparency concerning the data colleges and universities have collected concerning the learning outcomes of their students than previously. And there is much more dialogue about the issue of student learning outcomes than ever before, both between faculty and administration and between faculty members themselves.
However, according to Dr. Ikenberry, despite all that has been accomplished concerning the measurement of student learning outcomes, our understanding of that measurement and the use to which we put it remains in “a pretty sorry state.” There are two reasons for this. First, according to him, much of the data that is collected by colleges and universities concerning the learning outcomes of their students is collected on the basis of what he called an extrinsic motivation to avoid sanction by external accreditation bodies, as opposed to what he called an intrinsic motivation simply to understand what students are or are not learning. This leads naturally to a situation in which student learning outcomes data is underutilized by colleges and universities. For example, whereas it is often only used to demonstrate compliance to accreditation bodies, it could be used to help resolve various budget and retention issues. Second, while colleges and universities have become much more transparent concerning the data they have collected, they have not been as outgoing in the use of this data as they should be. Here Dr. Ikenberry seemed to be suggesting that colleges with positive data concerning the learning outcomes of their students should use that data to advertise and compete for prospective students with their competitors.
The second speaker, President Wolff, confined his remarks to the issue of what needs to happen next concerning student learning outcomes assessment. According to President Wolff, there are two fundamental tensions going forward. (He did not devote time to suggesting ways in which these tensions might be resolved. He admitted that he himself did not possess the resolutions.) First, whereas in the past data gleaned from student learning outcomes assessment has been used to improve college and university curriculum, all too often it is presently used by colleges and universities merely to demonstrate compliance with external accreditation agencies. According to President Wolff, the emphasis should be placed back on improvement. Second, whereas it is clear that the faculty needs to take ownership of any revisions to curriculum that result from an assessment of student learning outcomes, too often faculty interest in this area is not rewarded in terms of promotions, raises, tenure, etc.
II. Friday, January 27, 2012: Today I took notes at two presentations that I thought might have some relevance for Doane. Both concerned challenges that institutions of higher education face today.
1. The first session I took notes on was entitled “We’re Losing Our Minds: Rethinking American Higher Education.” The presenters were Richard P. Keeling, Principle and Senior Executive Consultant of Keeling and Associates; and Richard Hersh, Senior Consultant of Keeling and Associates.
The presentation consisted of an exposition of the main points of a forthcoming book the two presenters have written with the same title as that of the presentation itself. Here is a synopsis of that book taken from its publisher’s webpage:
America is being held back by the quality and quantity of learning in college. This is a true educational emergency! Many college graduates cannot think critically, write effectively, solve problems, understand complex issues, or meet employers’ expectations. We are losing our minds--and endangering our social, economic, and scientific leadership. Critics say higher education costs too much and should be more efficient but the real problem is value, not cost--financial “solutions” alone won’t work. In this book, Hersh and Keeling arguethat theonly solution--making learning the highest priority in college--demands fundamental change throughout higher education. (
During the presentation Keeling and Hersh addressed three specific questions. First, what is the most fundamental problem facing higher education today? Second, how did this problem come to be historically? And third, what must be done if the problem is to be solved? They addressed the questions in turn.
According to the presenters, the fundamental problem with higher education today is not, as others have suggested, that tuition is too high, that there is too much grade inflation, that colleges and universities are too inefficient or too top-heavy with administrators, or that there is low productivity amongst the faculty, especially amongst senior members of the faculty. Rather, the fundamental problem is that there is what the presenters call a deficit of higher learning. In particular, according to them, far too many college and university graduates are ill equipped to think critically, communicate clearly in both oral and written forms, solve problems, be both morally and personally responsible as agents, and be actively engaged as citizens in a democratic society.
According to the presenters, the deficit of higher learning found on the campuses of modern colleges and universities is ultimately a cultural problem. And for this reason, according to them, the blame for this problem (as well as the responsibility for its solution) does not lie with any one particular person or group. For example, it does not lie solely with the student body, the faculty or the administration. Rather, the idea is that we are all complicit. To explain this point further, however, we must turn to the answer the presenters give to the question of how the problem historically came about.
According to the presenters, by and large college and university administrators prioritize many things over and above the establishment of a culture of higher learning on their campuses. Some things that receive priority status include (but are not limited to) U.S. News and World Report rankings, athletics, recruitment, retention, endowments, new buildings and facilities, graduation rates, and “rock star professors.” Given that administrators prioritize so many things over actual learning, faculty wind up being given insufficient encouragement to have high expectations concerning the academic output of their students. In addition, faculty members are in some sense punished by their students for having high expectations in the form of poor student evaluations. For these reasons, according to the presenters, faculty members by and large fail to have high expectations for their students. According to the presenters, since members of the faculty have diminished expectations concerning their students, many students work only hard enough to meet those expectations, thus creating a kind of vicious cycle. According to the presenters, that is how the problem came about. And that, according to the presenters, is why we are all complicit.
Finally, the authors addressed the question of what should be done to solve the problem. According to them, since the problem is so systemic throughout higher education, and since so many parties are complicit in sustaining that problem, there will be no silver bullet concerning its solution. Rather, they provided a list of steps that they feel must be taken if the problem is to be solved. First, there must be an explicit emphasis on learning. This means that faculty must universally and continuously verbalize in an explicit manner their high expectations concerning student achievement to their students. And it means that administrators must hold the notion of higher learning to be of paramount importance when making budget decisions – for example, when trying to decide whether to give a raise to the football coach or whether to create new tenure track lines. Second, important skills such as critical thinking and clear writing must be developed in a cumulative and collective manner. This means that these skills must be stressed in many courses, as opposed to in a few or even in just one. Third, the curriculum must be universally challenging and rigorous. Students must not be able to slink their way to graduation by taking easy courses from lax professors. And fourth, students need to be able to interact with their professors outside of class time. I believe that this point was intended to apply to large research institutions, as opposed to a place like Doane.