QUALITY ASSURANCE, ACCREDITATION AND STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES: A ROAD TO EFFECTIVE PRACTICE JUDITH S. EATON WORLD BANK JUNE 19, 2006

WHAT ARE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES?  STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: DEMONSTRATION OF COMPETENCIES  DEGREE COMPLETION  PROFESSIONAL LICENSURE  ACHIEVEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL GOALS  SUCCESSFUL JOB PLACEMENT  SUCCESSFUL TRANSFER  ENTRY TO GRADUATE SCHOOL

IT’S NOT THAT EASY…  WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES AND INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE?  WHEN ARE JUDGMENTS ABOUT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT EVER “COMPLETE”?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR STUDENT LEARNING?  “IT CAN’T BE DONE” - LITTLE AGREEMENT ABOUT EVIDENCE OR WHAT COUNTS AS AN “OUTCOME”

WHO CARES THE MOST ABOUT OUTCOMES?  GOVERNMENTS  EMPLOYERS  THE PRESS  STUDENTS AND PARENTS  THE ACADEMY THOSE WHO CARE THE MOST ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY ALSO CARE THE MOST ABOUT OUTCOMES

MAJOR TOOLS TO DETERMINE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES  TESTING: INDIVIDUAL, INSTITUTIONAL, LICENSURE, STANDARDIZED  GRADING  PORTFOLIOS:EVIDENCE OF CORE SKILLS, SPECIALIZED SKILLS  CAPSTONE PROJECTS  PERFORMANCES, E.G., ART, CLINICAL WORK

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION: THE CONTEXT FOR STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES  REVIEW OF ACADEMIC QUALITY  FOCUS ON INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS  SELF-EVALUATION  PEER-BASED  STANDARDS-BASED  MISSION-BASED  RESULTS IN JUDGMENT

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION: CURRENT ATTENTION TO OUTCOMES  STANDARDS AND POLICIES THAT CALL FOR OUTCOMES  MORE ATTENTION STILL PAID TO RESOURCES AND PROCESSES  THE NATO SYNDROME: THE TALK IS OUTCOMES; THE ACTION IS RESOURCES/PROCESSES  STANDARDS-PRACTICE GAP

POTENTIAL COMPETITION: QUALITY ASSURANCE, ACCREDITATION AND OUTCOMES  QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORKS  RANKING SYSTEMS  SEARCH ENGINES  GOVERNMENT BENCHMARKING  INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS

OUTCOMES AND EFFECTIVE PRACTICES  MAKE OUTCOMES CENTRAL TO JUDGMENTS ABOUT QUALITY  ESTABLISH OUTCOMES-BASED STANDARDS  REQUIRE EVIDENCE OF OUTCOMES  BE FLEXIBLE ABOUT THE TOOLS FOR OUTCOMES  REQUIRE OUTCOMES IN THE CONTEXT OF INSTITUTIONAL MISSION

OUTCOMES AND EFFECTIVE PRACTICES - 2  ENCOURAGE COMPARABILITY  ENCOURAGE PUBLIC REPORTING/TRANSPARENCY  EMBRACE TECHNOLOGY, E.G., SEARCH ENGINES THAT PROVIDE EASY COMPARABILITY  WORK INTERNATIONALLY FOR SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF JUDGMENTS ABOUT OUTCOMES

WHAT TO AVOID  THE NATO SYNDROME  FAILURE OF POLITICAL WILL  DENIAL: “EMPHASIS ON OUTCOMES WILL GO AWAY” ****

SUMMARY  “OUTCOMES” REFERS TO RANGE OF INDICATORS OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT  A GREATER CONCERN FOR THOSE OUTSIDE THE ACADEMY THAN WITHIN  MAY BE DETERMINED USING A RANGE OF TOOLS – FROM TESTING TO PORTFOLIOS  QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION CURRENT EMPHASIS ON OUTCOMES IS MORE RHETORICAL THAN ACTUAL  THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL COMPETITORS FOR SUCCESSFUL ATTENTION TO OUTCOMES  EFFECTIVE PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH OUTCOMES RANGE INCLUDE EMPHASIS ON EVIDENCE, TRANSPARENCY, FLEXIBILITY AND FOCUS ON MISSION

THANK YOU