What	
  is	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  higher	
  educa1on?:	
  	
  
Comparing	
  ins1tu1onal	
  and	
  student	
  
perspec1...
Introduc1on	
  
•  New	
  pressures	
  have	
  challenged	
  the	
  tradi5onal	
  
purpose	
  of	
  higher	
  educa5on	
  ...
Introduc1on	
  
Knowledge	
  Gap	
  
•  Current	
  knowledge	
  gap	
  between	
  the	
  “economic	
  
benefits”	
  and	
  ...
Introduc1on	
  
Assessments	
  
•  Increasing	
  number	
  of	
  assessments	
  to	
  understand	
  and	
  measure	
  
stu...
Purpose	
  of	
  Study	
  
•  OBJECTIVE:	
  To	
  compare	
  and	
  contrast	
  ins5tu5onal	
  
and	
  student	
  perspec5...
Research	
  Ques1ons	
  
•  What	
  do	
  current	
  literature	
  suggests	
  to	
  be	
  
the	
  goals	
  and	
  purpose...
Methods	
  
•  Comprehensive	
  Literature	
  Review	
  Search	
  
•  Between	
  September	
  2012	
  and	
  January	
  20...
Overview	
  of	
  Data	
  Set	
  
•  Peer-­‐reviewed	
  ar5cles,	
  books,	
  magazines,	
  and	
  
newspapers	
  publishe...
Literature	
  Review	
  
Ins7tu7onal	
  Perspec7ve	
  on	
  Bachelor’s	
  Degree	
  
•  ACCU	
  (2013)	
  =	
  to	
  prepa...
Literature	
  Review	
  
Student	
  Perspec7ve	
  on	
  Bachelor’s	
  Degree	
  
•  Lumina	
  Founda5on	
  and	
  Gallop	
...
 
	
  
Findings	
  
9	
  common	
  themes	
  
•  1)	
  Social	
  democra7c	
  values	
  and	
  ac7on;	
  civic	
  engagement.	
  ...
Findings	
  
•  Student	
  goals	
  and	
  purposes	
  	
  =	
  Very	
  instrumental	
  
and	
  oren	
  personal	
  reason...
Ok,	
  we	
  get	
  it	
  Roy?	
  There’s	
  
a	
  misalignment.	
  Has	
  this	
  
been	
  true	
  historically?	
  
	
  ...
Percentage	
  of	
  freshmen	
  students	
  who	
  believe	
  that	
  being	
  well	
  off	
  
financially	
  is	
  “Essen1a...
Percentage	
  of	
  freshmen	
  students	
  who	
  believe	
  that	
  being	
  well	
  off	
  
financially	
  is	
  “Essen1a...
Percentage	
  of	
  freshmen	
  students	
  who	
  es1mate	
  they	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  
“very	
  good	
  chance”	
  to...
Percentage	
  of	
  freshmen	
  students	
  who	
  es1mate	
  they	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  
“very	
  good	
  chance”	
  to...
So,	
  how	
  should	
  higher	
  educa=on	
  
leaders	
  increase	
  students’	
  chance	
  to	
  
acquire	
  acquiring	
...
What	
  is	
  “Tuning	
  USA”?	
  
•  Founded	
  in	
  2009	
  by	
  Ins5tute	
  for	
  Evidence-­‐Based	
  
Change	
  (IE...
Purpose	
  of	
  “Tuning”	
  American	
  higher	
  
educa1on?	
  
•  1)	
  To	
  beher	
  align	
  the	
  goals	
  and	
  ...
FAQ	
  
•  1)	
  Q:	
  Is	
  “tuning”	
  leading	
  to	
  standardiza5on?	
  	
  
	
  A:	
  No.	
  “Tuning”	
  is	
  a	
  ...
Next	
  Steps	
  
•  Conduct	
  qualita5ve	
  study	
  on	
  faculty	
  members	
  
percep5on	
  of	
  “tuning”	
  higher	...
References	
  •  AAC&U.	
  Associa5on	
  of	
  American	
  Colleges	
  and	
  Universi5es.	
  (2012).	
  A	
  crucial	
  m...
•  Kuh,	
  G.D.,	
  Jankowski,	
  N.,	
  Ikenberry,	
  S.O.,	
  &	
  Kinzie,	
  J.	
  (2014).	
  Knowing	
  what	
  studen...
Ques1ons?	
  Comments?	
  
• E-­‐mail:	
  roy.chan@bc.edu	
  
• Web:	
  hhp://www.bc.edu	
  	
  	
  	
  
*NOTE:	
  This	
 ...
What is the purpose of higher education?: Comparing institutional and student perspectives on the "non-economic" benefits ...
What is the purpose of higher education?: Comparing institutional and student perspectives on the "non-economic" benefits ...
What is the purpose of higher education?: Comparing institutional and student perspectives on the "non-economic" benefits ...
What is the purpose of higher education?: Comparing institutional and student perspectives on the "non-economic" benefits ...
What is the purpose of higher education?: Comparing institutional and student perspectives on the "non-economic" benefits ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

What is the purpose of higher education?: Comparing institutional and student perspectives on the "non-economic" benefits of completing a U.S. bachelor's degree

987 views

Published on

Paper presented at AERA 2014 Annual Meeting on Monday, April 6, 2014 in Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
987
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
19
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

What is the purpose of higher education?: Comparing institutional and student perspectives on the "non-economic" benefits of completing a U.S. bachelor's degree

  1. 1. What  is  the  purpose  of  higher  educa1on?:     Comparing  ins1tu1onal  and  student   perspec1ves  on  the  “non-­‐economic”  benefits   of  comple1ng  a  college  degree               AERA  2014  ANNUAL  MEETING   Special  Thanks  To:     Dr.  Larry  H.  Ludlow,  Boston  College;  Dr.  Gavin  T.L.  Brown,  The  University  of   Auckland;  Dr.  Charles  Fadel,  Harvard  University   Roy  Y.  Chan   Ph.D.  student   Boston  College   Lynch  School  of  Educa5on   roy.chan@bc.edu     Monday,  April  6,  2014  
  2. 2. Introduc1on   •  New  pressures  have  challenged  the  tradi5onal   purpose  of  higher  educa5on  (AAC&U,  2012)     •  Creates  tension  between  higher  educa5on  as  a   public  good  versus  higher  educa5on  as  a  private   benefit  (Marginson,  1997)   •  Colleges  and  universi5es  are  under  pressure  to   measure  students’  general  skills  through   assessments  but  also  to  enhance  their  core   competencies  and  disposi5ons  such  as  knowledge,   aQtudes,  and  beliefs  for  entry  into  the  global   knowledge-­‐based  economy.  
  3. 3. Introduc1on   Knowledge  Gap   •  Current  knowledge  gap  between  the  “economic   benefits”  and  “non-­‐economic  benefits”  for   comple5ng  a  bachelor’s  degree  (Zaback,  Carlson,  &   Crellin,  2012)   •  Benson,  Esteva,  and  Levy  (2013)  emphasized  that  a   bachelor’s  degree  program  from  California’s  higher   educa5on  system  s5ll  remains  a  good  investment   •  Hout  (2012)  concluded  that  individuals  who   complete  higher  educa5on  earn  more  money,  live   healthy  lives,  and  contribute  more  to  society.  
  4. 4. Introduc1on   Assessments   •  Increasing  number  of  assessments  to  understand  and  measure   student  learning  progress  (AAU,  2013):     –  Collegiate  Learning  Assessment  (CLA)   –  Na5onal  Survey  of  Student  Engagement  (NSSE)   –  Degree  Qualifica5ons  Profile  by  the  Lumina  Founda5on   –  UCLA  Coopera5ve  Ins5tu5onal  Research  Program    (2013)  “2012   Freshman  Survey”     •  Arum  and  Roksa  (2011)  argued  that  45  percent  of  students  made  no   gains  in  their  wri5ng,  complex  reasoning,  or  cri5cal-­‐thinking  skills   during  their  first  two  years  of  college  and  36  percent  failed  to  show   any  improvement  over  the  four  years  of  college  (Liu,  Bridgeman,  &   Adler,  2012).     •  However,  limited  informa5on  about  how  the  data  are  used  (or  even   publicized)  vastly  lags  behind  in  the  worldwide  landscape  of  higher   educa5on  today  (Kuh  et  al.,  2014).    
  5. 5. Purpose  of  Study   •  OBJECTIVE:  To  compare  and  contrast  ins5tu5onal   and  student  perspec5ves  on  the  goals  and  purposes   of  comple5ng  a  bachelor’s  degree.   – To  understand  what  mahers  in  college  during   students  four  cri5cal  years     •  “UCLA  Freshman  Survey”  between  1967  and  2013   – To  determine  the  “value-­‐added”  for  comple5ng  a   bachelor’s  degree  today   •  Lumina  Founda5on  “Degree  Qualifica5ons  Profile  (DQP)”   – To  offer  prac5cal  sugges5ons  as  to  how  ins5tu5onal   and  student  percep5ons  on  goals  and  purposes  could   be  further  evaluated     •  IEBC’s  “Tuning”  American  Higher  Educa5on  
  6. 6. Research  Ques1ons   •  What  do  current  literature  suggests  to  be   the  goals  and  purposes  of  higher  educa5on?   •  How  do  students  and  ins5tu5ons  make   sense  of  undergraduate  educa5on  in  the  21st   century?   •  In  what  ways  do  a  college  degree  fulfill     higher  educa5on  ambi5ons  for  advanced   skills,  generic  competencies,  and  high-­‐ideals   by  the  5me  students’  graduate  from   university?  
  7. 7. Methods   •  Comprehensive  Literature  Review  Search   •  Between  September  2012  and  January  2014   •  Cri5cal  Interpre5ve  Synthesis  (CIS)   – Dixon-­‐Woods  et  al.  (2006)  =  to  establish  theories   and  concepts  from  diverse  bodies  of  exis5ng   literatures  through  systema5c  review  and  meta-­‐ ethnography  methodologies.     •  Ques5ons  the  ways  in  which  the  problems,  assump5ons,   and  solu5ons  are  constructed   •  Iden5fies  the  “synthe5c  constructs”  of  both  internal   purposes  and  external  purposes,  and  the  complex   interplay  between  them    
  8. 8. Overview  of  Data  Set   •  Peer-­‐reviewed  ar5cles,  books,  magazines,  and   newspapers  published  between  2000  and  2014   –  Does  not  include  “economic”  benefits   •  Selected  20  peer-­‐reviewed  ar5cles,  11  books,  3   magazine/newspaper  ar5cles,  and  2  policy  briefs   –  1)  Educa5on  Resources  Informa5on  Center  (ERIC)     –  2)  Educa5on  Research  Complete  (EBSCO)   –  3)  Academic  Search  Premier   –  4)  ProQuest   –  5)  Scopus   –  6)  Google  Scholar   –  7)  Amazon.com     –  8)  Chronicle  of  Higher  Educa7on     –  9)  Inside  Higher  Educa7on  
  9. 9. Literature  Review   Ins7tu7onal  Perspec7ve  on  Bachelor’s  Degree   •  ACCU  (2013)  =  to  prepare  students  for  civic  learning   and  democra5c  engagement   •  Lagemann  and  Lewis  (2012)  =  to  prepare  young  adults   with  civic  educa5on  (civic  values,  ideals,  and  virtues)     •  Saltmarsh  and  Hartley  (2012)  =  to  serve  a  democra5c-­‐ centered  civic  engagement  and  to  develop  fully   rounded  intellectually  sophis5cated  and  caring  person   •  Haigh  and  Clifford  (2011)  =  to  develop  students’   employability  skills,  moral  values,  and  competencies   •  Kiziltepe  (2010)  =  to  prepare  students  to  acquire  skills   in  interpersonal  competence,  mul5-­‐cultural   understanding,  skills  in  problem  solving,  a  sense  of   purpose,  and  confidence  
  10. 10. Literature  Review   Student  Perspec7ve  on  Bachelor’s  Degree   •  Lumina  Founda5on  and  Gallop  Poll  (2014)  =  95  percent   of  Americans  expected  the  purpose  of  higher  educa5on   is  to  “get  a  good  job.”     •  Barber,  Donnelly,  and  Rizvi  (2013)  =  to  have  the   “college  experience”  (mee5ng  students,  socialize,   explore  new  ideas,  make  friends,  lead  organiza5on)   •  Levine  and  Dean  (2012)  =  to  make  them  feel  secure,  to   be  autonomous  grown-­‐ups,  to  seek  in5macy,  and  to   live  in  an  Internet  world.     •  As5n  et  al.  (2011)  =  to  prepare  them  for  employment   (94%)  and  graduate  educa5on  (81%).     •  Kenneh,  Reed,  and  Lam  (2011)  =  for  self-­‐improvement,   achieving  life  goals,  societal  contribu5ons,  career,   money,  family  expecta5ons  
  11. 11.    
  12. 12. Findings   9  common  themes   •  1)  Social  democra7c  values  and  ac7on;  civic  engagement.  This  theme  relates  to  the  inten5on  that  upon   gradua5on  students  will  take  an  ac5ve  role  in  society,  service,  and  co-­‐curricular  ac5vi5es,  with  ac5ve   concern  for  involvement  in  civic  concerns.   •  2)  Advanced  intellectual  skills.  This  theme  relates  to  high-­‐level  cogni5ve  and  intellectual  skills  such  as   problem  solving,  analy5c  and  cri5cal  thinking,  and  crea5vity.     •  3)  Advanced  communica7on  skills.  This  theme  relates  to  sophis5cated  abili5es  to  communicate  orally,  in   wri5ng,  and  through  ICT-­‐supported  media  so  as  to  effec5vely  transmit  informa5on,  persuade,  argue,  and   so  on.     •  4)  Interpersonal  skills.  This  theme  focuses  on  students  gaining  competence  around  rela5onships  with   others.  This  includes  leading  in  condi5ons  of  complex  social  diversity,  exercising  tolerance,  curiosity,   ingenuity,  and  imagina5on.     •  5)  Voca7onal  &  employment  preparedness.  This  theme  has  to  do  with  using  a  bachelor’s  degree  educa5on as  a  means  of  gaining  a  highly  remunera5ve  job  and/or  career  or  having  the  skills  that  permit  entry  into  a   desirable  future  career.   •  6)  Personal  life  quality  enhancement.  This  theme  has  to  do  with  developing  a  personal  sense  of  purpose,   perspec5ve,  and  iden5ty  such  that  the  quality  of  one’s  own  life  is  improved.   •  7)  Personal  integrity.  This  theme  relates  to  becoming  aware  of  dissonance  and  resonance  and  having  the   competence  to  make  decisions  in  accordance  with  personal  morality  and  values.     •  8)  Graduate  school  educa7on  preparedness.  This  theme  focuses  on  the  skills,  knowledge,  and   competencies  required  when  entering  graduate  programs  in  a  specific  discipline.     •  9)  Family  expecta7ons/reasons.  This  theme  relates  to  fulfilling  obliga5ons  to,  expecta5ons  of,  and   aspira5ons  of  one’s  family  as  the  prime  mo5va5on  for  comple5ng  a  university  degree.  
  13. 13. Findings   •  Student  goals  and  purposes    =  Very  instrumental   and  oren  personal  reasons   – Money,  Jobs,  Mee5ng  New  Friends,  Finding  Love,   Acquire  Knowledge,  Study  Abroad,  Pre-­‐requisites  for   Graduate  School,  To  Get  Away  from  Home   •  Higher  educa5on  ins5tu5on  aims  and  purposes    =   highly  ideal  life-­‐  and  society-­‐changing   consequences.     – Core  competencies  and  generic  skills,  such  as,  problem   solving,  crea5vity,  communica5on,  cri5cal  thinking,  and   crea5vity  skills  that  are  deemed  necessary  for  success  in   the  21st  century    
  14. 14. Ok,  we  get  it  Roy?  There’s   a  misalignment.  Has  this   been  true  historically?           Let’s  look  at  data  I’ve  studied  from   UCLA  HERI  “Freshman  Survey”   between  1967  and  2013  
  15. 15. Percentage  of  freshmen  students  who  believe  that  being  well  off   financially  is  “Essen1al”:   (CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITIES)   Key  Summary   •  In  1967,  only  37%   believe  that  money  was   essen5al.  In  2013,  that   has  increased  to  82%.   •  Freshmen  students   believe  that  money  is   “essen5al”  for  pursuing   a  college  degree  at   Catholic  Universi5es   •  Increase  may  likely  be   due  to  the  college  costs   or  the  debt  that  would   be  incurred  from  tui5on   expense   *  This  data  was  generated  by  Roy  Y.  Chan  through  SPSS  on  April  5,  2014.  Any  use  of  this  data  should  be   consulted  by  Roy  Y.  Chan  at  roy.chan@bc.edu.  Thanks!  
  16. 16. Percentage  of  freshmen  students  who  believe  that  being  well  off   financially  is  “Essen1al”:   (PUBLIC  VS.  PRIVATE  UNIVERSITIES)   Key  Summary   •  In  1967,  only  42%  of   public  universi5es  and   44%  of  private   universi5es  believe  that   money  was  essen5al.  In   2013,  that  has  increased   to  82%  and  80%.   •  Historically,  freshmen   students  ahending  public   universi5es  expect   financial  stability  more   than  private  universi5es     •  Regardless  of   ins5tu5onal  type,  there   is  a  slight  drop  in  1993.   Likely  due  to  more  job   opportuni5es  and  the   end  of  Cold  War  era.   *  This  data  was  generated  by  Roy  Y.  Chan  through  SPSS  on  April  5,  2014.  Any  use  of  this  data  should  be   consulted  by  Roy  Y.  Chan  at  roy.chan@bc.edu.  Thanks!  
  17. 17. Percentage  of  freshmen  students  who  es1mate  they  will  have  a   “very  good  chance”  to  get  a  job:   (CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITIES)   Key  Summary   •  In  1973,  52%  of   freshmen  students  at   Catholic  universi5es   believe  that  a  college   educa5on  will  help   them  get  a  job.  In  2013,   that  number  has  stayed   the  same.   •  There  is  a  significant   drop  between  1977  and   1997.  This  may  likely  be   due  to  poor  job  market,   changing  demographics,   and  higher  college   enrollments  and  federal   loan  programs   *  This  data  was  generated  by  Roy  Y.  Chan  through  SPSS  on  April  5,  2014.  Any  use  of  this  data  should  be   consulted  by  Roy  Y.  Chan  at  roy.chan@bc.edu.  Thanks!  
  18. 18. Percentage  of  freshmen  students  who  es1mate  they  will  have  a   “very  good  chance”  to  get  a  job:   (PUBLIC  VS.  PRIVATE  UNIVERSITIES)   Key  Summary   •  In  1973,  50%  of   students  at  pubic   universi5es  and  57%  of   private  universi5es   believe  that  a  college   educa5on  will  help   students  get  a  job.  In   2013,  that  number  has   remained  the  same  but   has  significantly   dropped  at  private   universi5es  to  42%   •  There  is  a  significant   drop  once  again   between  1977  and  1997   *  This  data  was  generated  by  Roy  Y.  Chan  through  SPSS  on  April  5,  2014.  Any  use  of  this  data  should  be   consulted  by  Roy  Y.  Chan  at  roy.chan@bc.edu.  Thanks!  
  19. 19. So,  how  should  higher  educa=on   leaders  increase  students’  chance  to   acquire  acquiring  a  job  during   college?                 ANSWER:  “Tuning  USA”  
  20. 20. What  is  “Tuning  USA”?   •  Founded  in  2009  by  Ins5tute  for  Evidence-­‐Based   Change  (IEBC)  and  funded  by  Lumina  Founda5on   •  “Faculty  iden5fies  what  a  student  should  know  and  be   able  to  do  in  a  chosen  discipline  when  a  degree  has   been  earned  -­‐  an  associate,  bachelor’s  or  master’s.”   •  Six  states  are  now  “tuning”  higher  educa5on   –  Indiana,  Minnesota,  Utah,  Texas,  Kentucky,  and  Montana   •  Incorporates  Lumina’s  Degree  Qualifica5ons  Profile   (DQP)     –  DQP  =  examines  ins5tu5onal  level  (specialized  knowledge)   –  Tuning  =  examines  disciplines  level  (discipline  specific   knowledge)  
  21. 21. Purpose  of  “Tuning”  American  higher   educa1on?   •  1)  To  beher  align  the  goals  and  purposes  of  a  college  degree   •  2)  To  facilitate  student  success  and  reten5on,  especially   among  students  from  underrepresented  groups     •  3)  To  simplify  the  process  for  students  transferring  credits   between  ins5tu5ons   •  4)  To  emphasize  lifelong  learning  and  undervalued  transfer   skills  (sor  skills)   •  5)  To  increase  transparency  in  higher  educa5on  systems   among  different  countries   •  6)  To  ensure  that  the  knowledge  and  applied  skills  associated   with  coursework  match  with  civic,  societal,  and  workforce   need.  
  22. 22. FAQ   •  1)  Q:  Is  “tuning”  leading  to  standardiza5on?      A:  No.  “Tuning”  is  a  reference  point  for   ins5tu5ons  to  design  their  own  degrees.  The  goal   is  to  not  unionize;  rather,  to  discuss  what  is  unique   with  the  program  (i.e.,  highlight  the  "dis5nctness”)   •  2)  Q:  How  did  the  DQP  start?    A:  To  respond  to  the  AACU  LEAP  ini5a5ve   •  3)  Q:  So,  in  simple  language,  what  is  “tuning”   again?    A:  To  simply  create  a  degree  profile  for  each      major  
  23. 23. Next  Steps   •  Conduct  qualita5ve  study  on  faculty  members   percep5on  of  “tuning”  higher  educa5on   – Compara5ve  Case  Study  between  Xi’an,  China  and   Aus5n,  Texas   •  Examine  undergraduate  business  degree  programs   •  Pilot  Study:  Interviews   –   July  2014  in  Xi’an,  China     – August  2014  in  Texas,  USA   •  Data  Collec5on:  January  2015  and  June  2015  
  24. 24. References  •  AAC&U.  Associa5on  of  American  Colleges  and  Universi5es.  (2012).  A  crucial  moment:  College  learning  and  democracy’s  future.  Report  of  the  Na5onal  Task  Force  on    Civic  Learning  and   Democra5c  Engagement.  Washington,  D.C.:  Author.   •  AAU.  Associa5on  of  American  Universi5es.  (2013).  AAU  survey  on  undergraduate  student  objec7ves  and  assessment.  Washington,  DC:  Author.  Retrieved  from   hhp://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=14849     •  Arum,  R.  &  Roksa,  J.  (2011).  Academically  adriX:  Limited  learning  on  college  campuses.  Chicago,  IL:  University  Of  Chicago  Press.   •  As5n,  A.  W.  (1977).  Four  cri7cal  years.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass  Publishers.   •  As5n,  A.  W.,  As5n,  H.  S.,  &  Lindholm,  J.  A.  (2011).  Cul7va7ng  the  spirit:  How  college  can  enhance  students’  inner  lives.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass.   •  As5n,  A.W.,  Oseguera,  L.,  Sax,  L.J.,  &  Korn,  W.S.  (2002).  The  American  freshman:  Thirty-­‐five  year  trends.  Los  Angeles:  Higher  Educa5on  Research  Ins5tute.   •  Avery,  C.  &  Turner,  S.  (2012).  Student  loans:  Do  college  students  borrow  too  much  -­‐  or  not  enough.  Journal  of  Economic  Perspec7ves,  26(1),  165–192.   •  Baker,  V.  L.,  Baldwin,  R.  G.,  &  Makker,  S.  (2012).  Where  are  they  now?  Revisi5ng  Breneman’s  study  of  liberal  arts  colleges.  Liberal  Educa7on,  98(3),  48-­‐53.   •  Barber,  M.,  Donnelly,  K.,  &  Rizvi,  S.  (2013).  An  avalanche  is  coming:  Higher  educa7on  and  the  revolu7on  ahead.  London,  UK:  Ins5tute  for  Public  Policy  Research.     •  Barrie,  S.  C.  (2008).  “Iden5ty  transi5ons:  Developing  graduate  ahributes.”  Paper  presented  at  Effec5ve  Teaching  &  Learning  Conference,  Queensland,  Australia.   •  Bath,  D.,  Smith,  C.,  Stein,  S.,  &  Swann,  R.  (2004).  Beyond  mapping  and  embedding  graduate  ahributes:  bringing  together  quality  assurance  and  ac5on  learning  to  create  a  validated  and   living  curriculum.  Higher  Educa7on  Research  and  Development,  23(3),  313-­‐328.   •  Benneh,  W.  J.  &  Wilezol,  D.  (2013).  Is  college  worth  it?:  A  former  US  Secretary  of  Educa7on  and  a  liberal  arts  expose  the  broken  of  higher  educa7on.  Nashville,  TN:  Thomas  Nelson.   •  Benson,  A.,  Esteva,  R.,  &  Levy,  F.  (2013).  “The  economics  of  B.A.  ambivalence:  The  case  of  California  higher  educa5on”  (September  13,  2013).  doi:  10.2139/ssrn.2325657     •  Bok,  D.  (2013).  Higher  educa7on  in  America.  Princeton,  NJ:  Princeton  University  Press.   •  Bui,  K.  (2002).  First-­‐genera5on  students  four-­‐year  university:  background  characteris5cs,  reasons  pursuing  higher  educa5on,  first-­‐year  experiences.  College  Student  Journal,  36(1),  3-­‐11.   •  Chickering,  A.  W.  &  Reisser,  L.  (1993).  Educa7on  and  iden7ty.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass  Publishers.   •  Conte,  J.,  &  Levine,  C.  (1997).  Student  mo5va5ons,  learning  environments,  and  human  capital  acquisi5on:  Toward  an  integrated  paradigm  of  student  development.  Journal  of  College   Student  Development,  38(3),  229–243.   •  Delbanco,  A.  (2012).  College:  What  it  was,  is,  and  should  be.  Princeton,  New  Jersey:  Princeton  University  Press.   •  DeVi5s,  J.  L.  (2013).  Contemporary  colleges  and  universi7es.  New  York,  NY:  Peter  Lang  Publishing,  Inc.   •  Dixon-­‐Woods,  M.,  Cavers,  D.,  Agarwal,  S.,  Annandale,  E.,  Arthur,  A.,  &  Harvey,  J.  (2006).  Conduc5ng  a  cri5cal  interpre5ve  synthesis  of  the  literature  on  access  to  healthcare  by  vulnerable   groups.  BMC  Medical  Research  Methodology,  6(35).  Retrieved  on  December  9,  2013,  from  hhp://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-­‐2288/6/35.     •  Edmundson,  M.  (2013).  Why  teach?:  In  defense  of  a  real  educa7on.  New  York,  NY:  Bloomsbury  Publishing.   •  Entwistle,  N.  J.,  &  Peterson,  E.  R.  (2004).  Concep5ons  of  learning  and  knowledge  in  higher  educa5on:  Rela5onships  with  study  behaviour  and  influences  of  learning  environments.   Interna7onal  Journal  of  Educa7onal  Research,  41,  407-­‐428.     •  Hacker,  A.  &  Driefus,  C.  (2011).  Higher  educa7on?  How  colleges  are  was7ng  our  money  and  failing  our  kids  and  what  we  can  do  about  it.  New  York,  NY:  St.  Mar5n’s  Griffin.   •  Haigh,  M.,  &  Clifford,  V.  A.  (2011).  Integral  vision:  A  mul5-­‐perspec5ve  approach  to  the  recogni5on  of  graduate  ahributes.  Higher  Educa7on  Research  and  Development,  30(5),  573-­‐584.   •  Hansen,  E.T.  (2011).  Liberated  consumers  and  the  liberal  arts  college.  In  E.  C.  Lagemann  &  H.  Lewis,  What  is  college  for?  The  public  purpose  of  higher  educa7on,  (pp.  63-­‐85).  New  York,   NY:  Teachers  College  Press.   •  Hanstedt,  P.  (2012).  General  educa7on  essen7als:  A  guide  for  college  faculty.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass.   •  Henderson-­‐King,  D.  &  Smith,  M.  (2006).  Meanings  of  educa5on  for  university  students:  academic  mo5va5on  and  personal  values.  Social  Psychology  of  Educa7on,  9,  195-­‐221.   •  Hubball,  H.  &  Pearson,  M.  L.  (2011).  Scholarly  approaches  to  curriculum  evalua5on:  cri5cal  contribu5ons  for  undergraduate  degree  program  reform  in  a  Canadian  context.  In  M.   Saunders,  P.  Trowler  &  V.  Bamber  (Eds.),  Reconceptualising  evalua7on  in  higher  educa7on:  The  prac7ce  turn  (pp.  186-­‐199).  New  York:  Open  University  Press  McGraw-­‐Hill.   •  Humphreys,  D.  &  Kelly,  P.  (2014).  How  the  liberal  arts  and  sciences  majors  fair  in  employment:  A  report  on  earnings  and  long-­‐term  career  paths.  Washington,  D.C.:  AACU  and  NCHEMS.   •  Keeling,  R.  P.  &  Hersh,  R.  H.  (2012).  We’re  losing  our  minds:  Rethinking  American  higher  educa7on.  New  York,  NY:  Palgrave  Macmillan.   •  Kenneh,  D.,  Reed,  M.,  &  Lam,  D.  (2011).  The  importance  of  directly  asking  students  their  reasons  for  ahending  higher  educa5on.  Issues  in  Educa7onal  Research,  21(1),  65-­‐74.   •  Kiziltepe,  Z.  (2010).  Purposes  and  iden55es  of  higher  educa5on,  and  relatedly  the  role  of  the  faculty.  Egi7m  Aras7rmalari  -­‐  Eurasian  Journal  of  Educa7onal  Research,  40,  114-­‐132.  
  25. 25. •  Kuh,  G.D.,  Jankowski,  N.,  Ikenberry,  S.O.,  &  Kinzie,  J.  (2014).  Knowing  what  students  know  and  can  do:  The  current  state  of  student  learning  outcomes  assessment  in  US  colleges  and   universi7es.  Urbana,  IL:  University  of  Illinois  and  Indiana  University,  Na5onal  Ins5tute  for  Learning  Outcomes  Assessment  (NILOA).   •  Lagemann,  E.  C.  &  Lewis,  H.  (2012).  Renewing  the  civic  mission  of  American  higher  educa5on.  In  E.  C.  Lagemann  &  H.  Lewis,  What  is  college  for?  The  public  purpose  of  higher  educa7on,   (pp.  9-­‐45).  New  York,  NY:  Teachers  College  Press.   •  Lam,  B.  H.  &  Kwan,  K..  P.  (1999).  Students’  expecta5ons  of  university  educa5on.  In  J.  Jones  and  K.P.  Kwan,  (Eds.)  Evalua7on  of  the  Student  Experience  Project:  Vol.  3.,  The  Video  Interview   Project:  Listening  to  Our  Students  Talk,  (pp.  11-­‐20).  City  University  of  Hong  Kong,  Centre  for  the  Enhancement  of  Learning  and  Teaching.   •  Levine,  A.  &  Dean,  D.  (2012).  Genera7on  on  a  7ghtrope:  A  portrait  of  today’s  college  student.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass  Publica5ons.   •  Liu,  O.  L.,  Bridgeman,  B.,  &  Adler,  R.  M.  (2012).  Measuring  learning  outcomes  in  higher  educa5on:  Mo5va5on  mahers.  Educa7onal  Researcher,  41(9),  December  2012,  352-­‐362.   •  Lumina  Founda5on  (2011).  “The  degree  qualifica5ons  profile.”  Indianapolis,  IN:  Lumina  Founda5on  for  Educa5on,  Inc.,  January  2011.  Retrieved  from:   hhp://www.luminafounda5on.org/publica5ons/The_Degree_Qualifica5ons_Profile.pdf   •  Maxwell,  N.  (2007).  From  knowledge  to  wisdom.  London  Review  of  Educa7on,  5,  97-­‐115.   •  McArthur,  J.  (2011)  Reconsidering  the  social  and  economic  purposes  of  higher  educa5on.  Higher  Educa7on  Research  &  Development,  30(6),  737-­‐749.   •  McHenry,  L.  B.  (2007).  Commercial  influences  on  the  pursuit  of  wisdom.  London  Review  of  Educa7on,  5,  131-­‐142.   •  Menges,  R.  J.,  &  Aus5n,  A.  E.  (2001).  Teaching  in  higher  educa5on.  In  V.  Richardson  (Ed.),  Handbook  of  Research  on  Teaching  (4th  ed.,  pp.  1122-­‐1156).  Washington,  DC:  AERA.   •  Nussbaum,  M.  C.  (2012).  Not  for  profit:  Why  democracy  needs  the  humani7es.  Princeton,  New  Jersey:  Princeton  University  Press.   •  Palmer,  P.  J.,  Zajonc,  A.,  Scribner,  M.,  &  Nepo,  M.  (2010).  The  heart  of  higher  educa7on:  A  call  to  renewal.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass  Publica5ons.   •  Pascarella,  E.  &  Terenzini,  P.  (2005).  How  college  affects  students:  Three  decades  of  research.  San  Francisco,  CA:  Jossey-­‐Bass  Publishers.     •  Perry,  W.  G.  (1968).  Forms  of  intellectual  and  ethical  development  in  the  college  years:  A  scheme.  New  York:  Holt,  Rinehart,  &  Winston.   •  Polanyi,  M.  (1974).  Personal  knowledge:  Towards  a  post-­‐cri7cal  philosophy.  Chicago,  IL:  University  of  Chicago  Press.   •  Pryor,  J.  H.,  Eagan,  K.,  Palucki  Blake,  L.,  Hurtado,  S.,  Berdan,  J.,  &  Case,  M.  H.  (2012).  The  American  freshman:  Na7onal  norms  Fall  2012.  Los  Angeles,  CA:  Higher  Educa5on  Research   Ins5tute,  UCLA.   •  Psacharapoulos,  G.,  &  Patrinos,  H.  A.  (2004).  Returns  to  investment  in  educa5on:  A  further  update.  Educa7on  Economics,  12(2),  111–134.   •  Ramaley,  J.  &  Leskes,  A.  (2002).  Greater  expecta5ons:  A  new  vision  for  learning  as  a  na5on  goes  to  college.  Washington,  D.C.:  Associa5on  of  American  Colleges  and  Universi5es(AACU).   Retrieved  from:  hhp://www.greaterexpecta5ons.org/report/execu5veoverview.html   •  Readings,  B.  (1997).  The  university  in  ruins.  Cambridge,  MA:  Harvard  University  Press.   •  Rowland,  S.  (2002).  Overcoming  fragmenta5on  in  professional  life:  The  challenge  for  academic  Development.  Higher  Educa7on  Quarterly,  56(1),  52-­‐64.   •  Rudolph,  F.  (1962).  The  American  college  and  university.  Atlanta,  GA:  The  University  of  Georgia  Press.   •  Saltmarsh,  J.  &  Harley,  M.  (2012).  “To  serve  a  larger  purpose”:  Engagement  for  democracy  and  the  transforma7on  of  higher  educa7on.  Philadelphia,  PA:  Temple  University  Press.   •  Selingo,  J.  (2013).  College  unbound:  The  future  of  higher  educa7on,  and  what  it  means  for  students.  New  York,  NY:  New  Harvest.   •  Stephens,  D.  (2013).  Hacking  your  educa7on:  Ditch  the  lectures,  save  tens  of  thousands,  and  learn  more  than  your  peers  ever  will.  New  York,  NY:  Perigee  Trade.   •  Stoecker,  R.&  Tryon,  E.  (2009).  The  unheard  voices:  Community  organiza7ons  and  service-­‐learning.  Philadelphia,  PA:  Temple  University  Press.     •  Sullivan,  W.  (2011).  Professional  educa5on:  Aligning  knowledge,  exper5se,  and  public  purpose.  In  E.  C.  Lagemann  &  H.  Lewis,  What  is  college  for?  The  public  purpose  of  higher  educa7on,   (pp.  104-­‐131).  New  York,  NY:  Teachers  College  Press.   •  Time/Carnegie  Corpora5on  of  New  York  (2012).  “Higher  educa5on  poll.”  Published  on  October  18,  2012.  Retrieved  from:  hhp://na5on.5me.com/2012/10/18/higher-­‐educa5on-­‐poll     •  Trowler,  P.  (2011).  The  higher  educa5on  policy  context  of  evalua5ve  prac5ces.  In  M.  Saunders,  P.  Trowler  &  V.  Bamber  (Eds.),  Reconceptualising  evalua7on  in  higher  educa7on:  The   prac7ce  turn  (pp.  18-­‐31).  New  York:  Open  University  Press  McGraw-­‐Hill.   •  Washburn,  J.  (2005).  University  Inc.:  The  corporate  corrup7on  of  American  higher  educa7on.  New  York,  NY:  Basic  Books.   •  Wahy,  K.  (2006).  Addressing  the  basics:  academics'  view  of  the  purpose  of  higher  educa5on.  Australian  Educa7onal  Researcher,  33(1),  23-­‐39.   •  Westerheijden,  D.  F.,  Stensaker,  B.,  &  Rosa,  M.  J.  (Eds.).  (2007).  Quality  assurance  in  higher  educa7on:  Trends  in  regula7on,  transla7on  and  transforma7on.  Dordrecht,  NL:  Springer.   •  Wise,  S.  L.  &  Cohen,  M.  R.  (2009).  Test-­‐taking  effort  and  score  validity:  The  influence  of  the  students'  concep5ons  of  assessment.  In  D.  M.  McInerney,  G.  T.  L.  Brown  &  G.  A.  D.  Liem   (Eds.),  Student  perspec7ves  on  assessment:  What  students  can  tell  us  about  assessment  for  learning  (pp.  187-­‐205).  Charlohe,  NC:  Informa5on  Age  Publishing.   •  Yale  Report  (1828).  “Yale  Report  of  1828.”  New  Haven,  CT:  Yale  College.   •  Zaback,  K.,  Carlson,  A.,  &  Crellin,  M.  (2012).  The  economic  benefit  of  postsecondary  degrees:  A  state  and  na5onal  level  analysis.  Boulder,  CO:  State  Higher  Educa5on  Execu5ve  Officers.   •  Zemsky,  R.  (2013).  Checklist  for  change:  Making  American  higher  educa7on  a  sustainable  enterprise.  New  Brunswick,  NJ:  Rutgers  University  Press.   •  Zilberberg,  A.,  Brown,  A.  R.,  Harmes,  J.  C.,  &  Anderson,  R.  D.  (2009).  How  can  we  increase  student  mo5va5on  during  low-­‐stakes  tes5ng?  Understanding  the  student  perspec5ve.  In  D.  M.   McInerney,  G.  T.  L.  Brown  &  G.  A.  D.  Liem  (Eds.),  Student  perspec7ves  on  assessment:  What  students  can  tell  us  about  assessment  for  learning  (pp.  255-­‐278).  Charlohe,  NC:  Informa5on   Age  Publishing.   •  Zimmerman,  B.  J.,  Bonner,  S.,  &  Kovach,  R.  (1996).  Developing  self-­‐regulated  learners:  Beyond  achievement  to  self-­‐efficacy.  Washington,  DC:  American  Psychological  Associa5on   References  
  26. 26. Ques1ons?  Comments?   • E-­‐mail:  roy.chan@bc.edu   • Web:  hhp://www.bc.edu         *NOTE:  This  Powerpoint  is  available  for  download  at:  hop://www.rychan.com      

×