More Than You Think, Less Than We Need: Learning Outcomes Assessment in American Higher Education

The challenges facing higher education today can appear staggering: maintaining quality as budgets shrink, increasing graduation rates and lowering attrition rates, and ensuring that students obtain the learning outcomes to make them good citizens and good employees in the twenty-first century. Learning outcomes assessment provides colleges and universities with information they can use to help improve programs and make informed decisions.  The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment’s new report, More Than You Think, Less Than We Need: Learning Outcomes Assessment in American Higher Education, strove to answer the question, What is the higher education enterprise doing to assure the public that it is delivering on its promise? NILOA surveyed provosts and chief academic officers at more than 1,500 institutions in spring 2009 to determine the learning outcomes currently being measured at each institution, the methods used to measure learning outcomes, and the factors motivating assessment.  The survey found that while an overwhelming number of institutions are assessing learning outcomes, these assessments are most often done in response to state- or regionally required accreditation reviews, and there are still obstacles to putting assessment data to good use to improve learning. The National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment assists institutions and others in discovering and adopting promising practices in the assessment of college student learning outcomes. It is directed by George D. Kuh, Chancellor’s Professor of Higher Education at Indiana University, and a member of the National Leadership Council guiding AAC&U’s LEAP initiative. AAC&U President Carol Geary Schneider serves on the NILOA board.

FINDINGS

Types of Assessments

• Most institutions surveyed (more than 75 percent) said they have adopted a set of common learning outcomes for all undergraduate students, though large research universities were less likely to have common learning outcomes than smaller institutions granting bachelor or associate degrees.
• Assessment of learning outcomes at the institutional level using a national survey was most common—76 percent of respondents assessed in this way. About 39 percent reported using standardized measures of general knowledge (such as the Collegiate Learning Assessment) to assess learning outcomes.
• Other methods of assessment were far less common: external expert judges of student work (9 percent), tests of specialized knowledge (8 percent), student portfolios (8 percent), and employer interviews (8 percent).

Reasons for Assessment

• The most common reason cited for conducting learning outcomes assessment was to prepare for institutional accreditation or for program accreditation.
• “An institutional commitment to improvement” was the third-most cited reason for learning outcomes assessment, after the two types of accreditation.
• Baccalaureate-granting institutions gave more weight to a campus commitment to improvement as a reason for assessment, while master’s-granting institutions gave national and regional accreditation more weight.
• For-profit institutions indicated that every one of eight influence factors was influential in driving assessment activity.

Uses of Assessment Data

• Baccalaureate-granting institutions were more likely than other institutional types to incorporate assessment data into faculty promotion and tenure decisions.
• Community colleges and associate-degree-granting institutions were more likely to use assessment data to determine student readiness for college coursework, and for improving instructional performance.
• Doctoral/research institutions were more likely than other institutional types to use assessment data to respond to calls for accountability.

The entire report may be read online. See also findings on learning assessment from AAC&U’s survey of members conducted in late 2008 and early 2009.

DID YOU KNOW?

• Twenty percent of institutions surveyed have no assessment staff.
• Eighty percent of respondents at doctoral/research universities indicated that lack of faculty engagement was a challenge.
• Less selective institutions were more likely to use standardized measures of general knowledge to assess learning outcomes, while more selective institutions were more likely to use locally develop instruments to gather data.