Faculty incorporation of liberal Essential Learning Outcomes

Faculty Incorporation of Liberal Essential Learning Outcomes Shifang Li In 2007, the Association of American Colleges and Universities recommended a set of Essential Learning Outcomes as objectives for twenty-first-century college learning. This study examined to what extent Essential Learning Outcomes are endorsed by faculty members with different teaching experience, across academic disciplines, Carnegie Classifications, institution types of controls, and accreditation regions. Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) 2004 data were used for this study with permission from the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. ANOVA, t test, were used for hypothesis tests. Regression and multiple regressions were used to calculate effect sizes, which quantified the differences between groups. The major findings included: (1) the two groups of faculty (one is from professional and applied fields, and the other is from all remaining disciplines) differed significantly (p < .01) on endorsing eight of the 11 Essential Learning Outcomes (ELOs). Faculty members from professional and applied fields emphasized more on six of the eight significant ELOs than faculty members from others did. Most of the differences in magnitude are appreciable; (2) the two groups of faculty (one is from professional, and the other is a combination of applied and the remaining disciplines) differed significantly (p < .01) on six of the 11 ELOs. Regarding these six significant ELOs, faculty members in professional gave more emphasis than the group of applied & others did, and the differences in magnitude are appreciable; (3) faculty members across disciplines differed significantly (p < .01) on endorsing each of the 11 ELOs, and most of the differences in magnitude are large; (4) faculty members from private and public higher institutions differed significantly (p < .01) on five of the 11 ELOs. The differences in magnitude between them are modest to trivial; (5) faculty members from six accreditation regions differed significantly (p < .01) on emphasizing six of the 11 ELOs. The differences in magnitude between these regions are appreciable; (6) faculty members from the three Classifications of Carnegie institutions differed significantly (p < .01) on emphasizing five of the 11 ELOs. The differences in magnitude between them are modest to trivial; (7) faculty members with different teaching experience differed significantly (p < .01) on emphasizing three of the 11 ELOs. The differences in magnitude between them are modest to trivial. These findings should assist policy makers, professional organizations, and college leaders to make sound decisions in maximizing the adoption of the AAC&U 2007 proposal. AKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my genuine thanks to the members of my committee for their support and guidance as I completed my program of study and prepared this dissertation. To Dr. Richard Hartnett, he has provided continual guidance, advice, and motivation during the process of this study. To Dr. Richard Walls, he provided not only his expertise in quantitative research, but also most importantly his character and integrity towards academic researchwhich I believe will impact the rest of my life. To Dr. Susan Aloi, for the internship she created for meit inspired my enthusiasm for the research. She also put a great amount work in editing my dissertation. To Dr. Ernest Goeres, for his kindness, and willingness to help out in every possible way to finalize my dissertation. To Dr. Ahmed Fakhri, for his thoughtful suggestions. I would also like to express my heartfelt thanks to Dr. Cheryl Torsney, Dr. Joan Gorham and Dr. John C. Sencindiver. As academic administrators, they mentored me on educational leadership, trusted me to bring my knowledge into practice, and provided role models for my career. To them, I owe great respect.