ED470037 2002-00-00 Reform Initiatives

in Higher Education. ERIC Digest.

ERIC Development Team

www.eric.ed.gov

Table of Contents

If you're viewing this document online, you can click any of the topics below to link directly to that section.

Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC Digest........................ 1

PROFILES: MAJOR REFORM MOVEMENTS............................ 2

STUDENT ASSESSMENT.................................................... 2

FRESHMAN YEAR SEMINARS..............................................3

SOME OBSERVATIONS...................................................... 3

CONCLUSIONS.................................................................5

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................ 5

ERIC Identifier: ED470037

Publication Date: 2002-00-00

Author: El-Khawas, Elaine

Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC.

Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC

Digest.

THIS DIGEST WAS CREATED BY ERIC, THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT ERIC, CONTACT

ACCESS ERIC 1-800-LET-ERIC

INTRODUCTION

Reform initiatives are numerous in American higher education. Their messages and

ED470037 2002-00-00 Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC Digest. Page 1 of 7
hopes are widely documented through conferences, journals, newsletters, and funded

projects. Many membership associations, networks and informal alliances actively

promote new directions for higher education.

The history of American higher education reveals a continuing stream of reform that has

affected academic programs, degree requirements, methods of instruction, and

organizational structures (Rudolph, 1977; Altbach, 1980; Curry, 1992; Gaff and Ratcliff,

1996). General education requirements have been overhauled, new fields of studies

introduced, and new institutions established, all without being labeled as reforms

(El-Khawas, 1996).

Visible as these activities are, reform movements are poorly understood as a

mechanism by which higher education changes. Levine (1980) described several

general patterns. As he noted, reform is usually described in terms of its typical phases:

the initiation phase, when aims are set out; the implementation phase, when ideas are

put into operation; and a final, institutionalization phase, when reforms try to achieve a

stable, enduring form. Presidential leadership is been said to be important, with visible

leadership support seen as crucial in getting reforms off the ground. A common

assumption is that most reforms are unsuccessful because they come into conflict with

ongoing programs or otherwise fail to win broad acceptance. Many reforms are thought

to survive only in enclaves, somewhat removed from mainstream programs, or survive

only if they change substantially from their original purposes.

Recent studies identify a number of universities that have been increasingly successful

in undertaking reform and have tried to influence the practices of other academic

institutions (e.g., Ewell, 1991). Survival of a reform may be only one indicator of a

reform's success. Another indicator may include having multi-institutional impact, in

which the reforms are adopted by many other institutions. The development of a

professional network to promote wider understanding of the reform may be another

mark of success.

PROFILES: MAJOR REFORM MOVEMENTS

Recent reform initiatives can help illustrate some general points about reform in higher

education. Two profiles are offered, chosen for differences in their aims: 1) Student

assessment, a reform movement active since the mid-1980s that presses all colleges

and universities to measure educational progress of students, with notable success; and

2) Freshman year seminars, an effort to improve the experience of beginning college

students that has substantially changed the practices of most US colleges and

universities.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Assessment as a reform movement took wing in the early 1980s, prompted by calls for

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 2 of 7 ED470037 2002-00-00 Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC Digest.
greater accountability by governors of several states. States pressed for greater

evidence on the outcomes of college study, and some imposed new requirements on

colleges, including annual reporting on institutional performance or a revamping of

academic programs. Accreditors also took a strong stand: regional accrediting agencies

mandated that institutions conduct outcomes assessments, and many specialized

accrediting agencies went a step further, requiring that academic programs be

redesigned to link curriculum to the outcomes being assessed (e.g., Middle States

Association of Colleges and Schools, 1991; Glidden, 1998).

Following this initial push, nongovernmental actors took on a strong and eventually

dominant role in the assessment movement. Although they worked with state

governments and accreditors, they also encouraged institutions to develop assessment

procedures appropriate to their own circumstances. The American Association for

Higher Education (AAHE) offered a highly visible, continuing forum for information

exchange. Several academics and a few institutions, such as Alverno College, became

"stars" of the movement, offering advice and commentary. The result was widespread

implementation of student assessment methods on the nation's campuses over a

relatively short period (El-Khawas, 1996), with prospects for continuing success

reinforced by annual AAHE conferences that continue to highlight good practices and

implementation strategies.

FRESHMAN YEAR SEMINARS

Freshman year seminars are a very successful reform that tackled a long-standing,

seemingly endemic problem for higher education, the confusion and difficulties that

cause many new students to drop out of college during or at the end of their freshman

year. Beginning in the mid-1980s, a new approach gained national attention, based on

the experience of one university and one forceful advocate. John Gardner, at the

University of South Carolina (USC), had developed University 101, a course that offered

guidance to new students about adapting to university life. In 1986, after more than a

decade's success, USC established a National Resource Center that has promoted the

wider adoption of this approach through annual conferences, publications, research,

eventually an academic journal and a network of colleges and universities. The impact

has been phenomenal: by the mid-1990s, three-quarters of the nation's colleges and

universities reported greater attention to the freshman experience (El-Khawas, 1996).

SOME OBSERVATIONS

These profiles illustrate several characteristics of reform initiatives in American higher

education:

* Many reforms start small and are "self-funded" by colleges and universities

(El-Khawas, 2000). A typical pattern is that reforms emerge out of ongoing operations,

sometimes as small experiments. Later they connect with networks or associations (or

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED470037 2002-00-00 Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC Digest. Page 3 of 7
obtain foundation grants to extend their innovation to other institutions). John Gardner

was a strong advocate of freshman year reforms at his own institution for a decade

before he built a national network devoted to improving the freshman year. Alverno

College, long known for its substantial innovations in assessing student competencies,

eventually created its own workshops and publications and also worked through

associations to expand its impact.

* An idea champion certainly helps. Gardner's role with freshman seminars is but one

example. Other important examples include the work of Mina Shaunessey and Harriet

Sheridan to promote writing, the efforts of George Kuh at Indiana University to promote

student engagement, or the initiatives to spur learning productivity championed by

Bruce Johnstone of the State University of New York at Buffalo. For assessment,

several persons helped to explain ideas and spur activity, including Peter Ewell of

NCHEMS, Ted Marchese and Pat Hutchings at AAHE, and Marcia Mentkowski and

others at Alverno College.

* Voluntary associations are major sponsors of reform. They help publicize good ideas

and confer national recognition and legitimacy to fledgling local efforts. AAHE and the

Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)-two education associations

with large, nationwide memberships-have been strong advocates of curriculum reform.

AAHE has been a leader in supporting the assessment movement, for example, while

AAC&U has supported efforts to broaden diversity, to establish learning communities

and to support writing across the curriculum. Other associations-some directed to

specific disciplines or professional groups-also support reform through conferences,

workshops, and publications. Networks have developed to support reform, notably the

League for Innovation in the community colleges.

* Nongovernmental agencies are visible supporters of reform in American higher

education (El-Khawas, 2000). Private foundations, including the Ford, Exxon, and

Kellogg Foundations, the Pew Charitable Trusts, as well as regional and local

counterparts, are responsive to ideas brought to them by creative individuals and may

also spur reform in priority areas they identify. The Ford Foundation, for example, has

long supported reforms to facilitate transfer for community college students, as well as

university-community partnerships to improve the college readiness of high school

graduates in low-income neighborhoods. The Pew Charitable Trusts has vigorously

supported new approaches to assessment.

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 4 of 7 ED470037 2002-00-00 Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC Digest.
* The federal government's role in reform is limited mainly to small-scale grants to

support certain reforms. The U.S. Department of Education has supported initiatives in

international education and, recently, the Corporation for National Service has

supported the spread of service learning. The Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary

Education, the federal agency mandated to promote improvement, has been a

significant sponsor of reform, awarding small grants to many early, experimental

approaches.

* It seems that reform is more complex than often described. Most reforms do not

emerge from mandates by government but instead are shaped from the ideas that

certain individuals or campuses develop (El-Khawas, 2000). Although external trends

can be influential, they also can be ignored or resisted (cf. Cheney, 1991). For an

innovative response to develop, concerns about external trends must be reinterpreted

or brought inside the institutional setting. Sometimes a reform is assisted by general

trends. The freshman year seminars were consistent with growing institutional concerns

about retaining students, especially during a time when demographics suggested that

fewer students would enroll.

CONCLUSIONS

In sum, reform initiatives in higher education follow a characteristically American

pattern. Each academic institution, program, or scholar decides whether to take on a

certain approach. New initiatives abound in higher education but they become a "reform

movement" only when many institutions decide to take part. For many issues, a

movement does not develop, and problems continue (cf. Finn, 1988). For individual

campuses that decide to take action, incrementalism is the primary implementation

model, in which a small program is given the chance to demonstrate the value of its

approach but has to rely on the judgments of others to gain adherents or see the

innovation expanded. One enters the market of ideas, but cannot guarantee the result.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altbach, P.G. (1980). University reform: An international perspective.

AAHE-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 10. Washington, DC: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education: What they do and why they

fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cheney, L.V. (1991, Jan.-Feb.). Tyrannical machines:

A report on educational practices gone wrong and our best hopes for setting them right.

Humanities,12(1),4-10,36-37. Curry, B.K. (1992). Instituting enduring innovations:

Achieving continuity of change in higher education. Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC

Higher Education Reports.

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED470037 2002-00-00 Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC Digest. Page 5 of 7
El-Khawas, E. (1996). Campus trends. Washington, DC.: American Council on

Education.

El-Khawas, E. (2000). The impetus for organizational change: an exploration. Tertiary

Education and Management, 6, 37-46.

Ewell, P.T. (1991, Fall). Assessment and TQM: In search of convergence. New

Directions for Institutional Research, (No. 71 Total Quality Management in Higher

Education) 18(3), 39-52.

Finn, C. E. (1988, Jul.-Aug.). Judgment time for higher education: In the court of public

opinion.Change,20(4), 34-39.

Gaff, J., & Ratcliff, J.L, eds. (1996). Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, J., Jewler, A., eds. (1992) Your college experience: Strategies for success.

The Freshman Year Experience Series. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Glidden, R. (1998). The contemporary context of accreditation: Challenges in a

changing environment. Keynote address for 2nd CHEA Conference. Washington, DC:

Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

Levine, A. (1980). Why innovation fails. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Marcus, D., Cobb, E.B., & Shoenberg, R.E. (2000). Lessons Learned from FIPSE

Projects IV. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement

of Postsecondary Education.

Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Higher Education.

(1991). Framework for outcomes assessment. Philadelphia: Author.

Rudolph, F. (1977). Curriculum: A history of the American undergraduate course of

study since 1636. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive university structures: Adaptation to socioeconomic

environments of US and European universities. London: Jessica Kingsley.

----- This Digest is based on El-Khawas, E. (2002). Reform Movements. In Higher

education in the United States: an encyclopedia (Vol. 2, pp. 512-516). Santa Barbara,

CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

The mission of the ERIC system is to improve American education by increasing and

facilitating the use of educational research and information to effect good practice in the

activities of learning, teaching, educational decision making, and research, wherever

www.eric.ed.gov ERIC Custom Transformations Team

Page 6 of 7 ED470037 2002-00-00 Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC Digest.
and whenever these activities take place.

This publication was partially prepared with funding from the Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no.

RR-93-00-0036. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the positions or

policies of OERI or the department. Permission is granted to copy and distribute this

ERIC-HE Digest.

Title: Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC Digest.

Note: Based on El-Khawas, E. (2002). "Reform Movements." In "Higher Education in

the United States: An Encyclopedia" (v2, p512-16). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Document Type: Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs)

(071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073);

Available From: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, One Dupont Circle, Suite

630, Washington, DC 20036-1183. Tel: 800-956-7739 (Toll Free).

Descriptors: College Freshmen, Educational Assessment, Educational Change,

Educational History, Higher Education, Program Implementation, Student Evaluation

Identifiers: ERIC Digests, Reform Efforts

###

[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]

ERIC Resource Center www.eric.ed.gov

ED470037 2002-00-00 Reform Initiatives in Higher Education. ERIC Digest. Page 7 of 7