Accountability for Student Learning: Slow and Steady Progress or Persistent Resistance?.

The purpose of this study was to explore the present status of efforts to assess student-learning outcomes within the bachelor’s degree granting institutions of the campuses in one system of public higher education. Further, the purpose of this study was also to understand what challenges and criticisms academic leaders report about the call to provide learning outcome evidence. Themes and findings of the study suggest that accountability for student learning is a persistent accountability challenge within higher education institutions. Accountability is a persistent and commanding policy issue facing higher education leaders, and student learning is a predominant form of accountability evidence requested by stakeholders (National Governor’s Association, 1986; Thelin, 2004; Spellings Commission, 2006). Two high level reports provide historical bookends on the persistent call for accountability evidence of student learning. In 1986, the National Governor’s Association released a report entitled Time for Results, outlining a plan to reform education in the United States. One of the major foci called for nationwide commitment on the part of institutional leaders to focus on improving educational quality and to produce evidence of student learning (National Governor’s Association, 1986). Twenty years later, the Spellings Commission (2006) released “A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. ” That report once again raised concern with student learning and called for a nationwide effort to re-position the United States as a world leader in education. Joining these calls have been efforts from lawmakers to push toward institutional accountability for student learning (Flaherty, 2013; Board of Governors, State University System of Florida, 2013). In Iowa, for instance, the legislature passed and the Governor signed a mandate that faculty who teach at each of the three state universities create assessments that provide summative information on student performance and formative results that can be used to generate a plan for improvement (Flaherty, 2013). Florida’s state universities are required to develop an ‘Academic Learning Compact’ for each undergraduate educational program, which articulates the expected outcomes, corresponding assessment instruments and methods, and a plan for improvement based on the results (State University System of Florida, 2013). In addition to state-level mandates, accreditation has added pressure to the expectation to assess and report student learning outcomes. Ewell (2001) stated that accreditation organizations, both regional and specialized, have a central role in pushing assessment of student learning outcomes to the forefront at colleges and universities to demonstrate institutional effectiveness. For instance, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (2012) requires that all educational programs identify a clearly articulated set of student learning outcomes and that such outcomes are accompanied by a plan for how the results will be used to guide improvement. With the Journal of Research in Education Volume 24, Number 1 Spring and Summer 2014 84 requirement that federal student aid is tied to regional accreditation, universities have an added incentive to prioritize the assessment of student learning outcomes (United States Department of Education, 2013). But despite longstanding and widespread interest, accountability for student learning persists as a desired, but largely unaddressed, form of accountability evidence. Consequently, this paper seeks to describe the current status and challenges associated with institutional efforts to respond to expectations for learning evidence. This description will not be given, however, without first considering the underlying contextual factors that influence these efforts. Several questions are warranted to give consideration to this context. Why are stakeholders concerned with accountability in student learning? Many of the students who graduate from colleges and universities are perceived to lack core competencies associated with an undergraduate education. A recent book entitled Academically Adrift by Arum and Roksa (2011) criticized colleges and universities for not asking enough of students, arguing that insufficient rigor has led to student incompetence with basic skills such as written communication and critical thinking. Examining test scores, survey responses, and transcripts of over 2,000 students, Arum and Roksa found that students do not significantly improve in these skill domains as a result of the undergraduate curriculum. In addition, employers commonly report that graduates lack basic skills to meet jobrelated demands. In 2010, the American Association of Colleges and Universities released a report on employer perceptions of college learning. Employers were interviewed about the skills needed to address challenges associated with a globalizing marketplace and about their perspectives on the effectiveness of institutions to prepare students with the skill sets to meet these challenges. Participants shared that a broad range of skills and a specialized understanding of a field were necessary for success in today’s workplaces. However, employers also reported that many graduates entered the workplace insufficiently prepared to meet these expectations and that college and university leaders should address these skill deficiencies (American Association of Colleges & Universities, 2010). Aside from perceived deficits in the competencies of college graduates, many of higher education’s key stakeholders view institutions as incapable of or disinterested in sufficiently addressing accountability and performance expectations (Lane, 2007; Bogue & Hall, 2012). Bogue and Hall (2012) surveyed corporate executives, legislators, and academic leaders in five different states to gather and compare major stakeholder perspectives on higher education accountability. Bogue and Hall found that corporate and legislative leaders perceived that institutions will ‘use cosmetic changes to avoid disclosing unflattering information on performance. ’ Other evidence suggests that resistance to external expectations for change in institutional accountability for learning may insufficiently characterize the issue of institutional response to assessment. Lane (2007) wrote, for instance, that a key factor influencing resistance, where truth to this notion may be observed, can be due to the uncertainty Journal of Research in Education Volume 24, Number 1 Spring and Summer 2014 85 surrounding the change proposition. What is it, specifically, that stakeholders want as evidence for student learning, it is grounded in consensus, and is there a clear connection between what is expected and what is taught on college and university campuses? At the heart of accountability for student learning may, in part, be the uncertainty about how to navigate tension between an enterprise that is valued for its autonomy in academic mission and evaluated by its duty to demonstrate performance within a democratic social and political fabric. Further, a lack of clarity is present on the extent to which institutions are truly resistant to change or whether this perception is more closely associated with some stakeholder dissatisfaction with institutional mission priorities. What has been the response from colleges and universities thus far? Despite the complexity of the task to be accountable for student learning, some institutions have taken initiative to provide transparent, comparable data to stakeholders (Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, 2013; The Lumina Foundation, 2013). The Association for Public and Land Grant Universities’ Voluntary System of Accountability, a resource in which many colleges and universities elect to participate, launched a pilot program in 2012 that built in evidence of student learning into the profile of key performance criteria on student outcomes and experience indicators. Collected through the pilot project on student learning were scores on standardized exams designed to measure outcomes commonly associated with the general education curriculum (Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, 2012). Non-profit organizations have also partnered with colleges and universities to address the call for assessment of student learning. For example, the Lumina Foundation (2013) has developed the Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP), which is a resource that seeks to define competencies that a graduate should be expected to know upon completion of an associate’s, baccalaureate, or master’s degree – though a corresponding, comprehensive plan for how universities can assess and report on such student learning is missing. In partnership with Lumina, the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, located at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, has been working to track institutional use of the DQP and found that hundreds of institutions across 46 states are using this framework for assessment (National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, 2013). Through these initiatives, it is evident that many colleges and universities are working to address concerns related to student learning. The impact of these efforts to inform the public and to guide improvement is yet to be determined. What makes being accountable for student learning difficult? Evidence suggests there is inadequate consensus about what forms of learning evidence are considered desirable among major stakeholders (Bogue & Hall, 2012). In Bogue and Hall’s five-state study on corporate, political, and academic leader views on accountability, for instance, there was wide disagreement between the three groups on the desirability of various student learning outcomes as an indicator of performance. Business and state political stakeholders differed from college and university presidents, provosts, and faculty on